Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Why are they superior in the hand of someone monumentally stronger than your average human but only if this someone is a follower of the Imperium rather than a follower of Chaos???
Do we even know if Chaos Terminators aren't getting the same changes or are you just trying to meet your whine quota?
I mean this is a good point. We haven't seen ANYTHING besides Necrons and Loyalist scum. While we could expect GW to screw up, shouldn't we at least wait for the leaks to show us they did so?
Jack Flask wrote: Do we even know if Chaos Terminators aren't getting the same changes or are you just trying to meet your whine quota?
I'm just answering H.B.M.C.'s argument.
He was answering to the_scotsman statement about "the official list of "weapons that are just 100% better if the trigger is pulled/swung by a loyalist space marine"" (emphasis mine) with "Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?". But the argument only holds if Chaos Space Marines also have the better version of those weapons.
Honestly, I don't think Chaos will have the changes before they get a new codex, and I have no idea if my faction will get a new codex for this edition, or the next one ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Why are they superior in the hand of someone monumentally stronger than your average human but only if this someone is a follower of the Imperium rather than a follower of Chaos???
Because Geedubs loves them Space Marines.
The implication being that these rules somehow wouldn't be replicated in a subsequent Chaos Codex?
GW are making balancing changes to 9th edition, stats increasing is nice. Also, expect all chaos terminators to receive the same changes for 9th. They needed the buff so im happy for Marine/chaos players, also this proves regular space marines aren't going anywhere. They are still fighting beside Primaris till the end of time.
Do we know this is even true, or if it is true would it be the case for anyone else beside SM terminators (why would it be ?)? A random data sheet from a box could well be a typo Sounds like another 2W cult CSM rumour to me..
Argive wrote: Do we know this is even true, or if it is true would it be the case for anyone else beside SM terminators (why would it be ?)? A random data sheet from a box could well be a typo
Sounds like another 2W cult CSM rumour to me..
If it is a typo, it would have been made twice, because the Sergeant and the regular Terminators have 3W. Not outside the possibility, but less likely.
I don't like the changes to the Power Weapons. If the Sword is +1 StrAP-3, what purpose does an Axe serve? And the Power Fist going to flat 2 damage is kinda sucky too. Otherwise, I am loving the idea of 3W Terminators. My brother is going to run Deathwing again if this ends up being true. I love Deathwing, even if they are a stupid hard unit to kill.
Argive wrote: Do we know this is even true, or if it is true would it be the case for anyone else beside SM terminators (why would it be ?)? A random data sheet from a box could well be a typo Sounds like another 2W cult CSM rumour to me..
If it is a typo, it would have been made twice, because the Sergeant and the regular Terminators have 3W. Not outside the possibility, but less likely.
I don't like the changes to the Power Weapons. If the Sword is +1 StrAP-3, what purpose does an Axe serve? And the Power Fist going to flat 2 damage is kinda sucky too. Otherwise, I am loving the idea of 3W Terminators. My brother is going to run Deathwing again if this ends up being true. I love Deathwing, even if they are a stupid hard unit to kill.
I'm not a fan of power armour/imperium in general, but terminators have always been one of my all time favourite units so I would like to see more of them on the table for sure.
Not really against this idea per se. Terminators, Agressors ? whats the difference which unit obliterates my NPC stuff.. Might as well be termies.
But I don't want his to be a thing across the board..coz it will be hap-hazardly with some stuff going up in wounds and others not coz reasons which will 100% happen coz GW.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I don't like the changes to the Power Weapons. If the Sword is +1 StrAP-3, what purpose does an Axe serve?
Maybe the axe has a new profile as well?
I am assuming so. But then there is a ripple effect. Are Axes going to be Str+2, AP-2? If so, then what are Power Mauls going to be? It is just odd. Don't get me wrong, I LIKE that Power Swords are even better. I am thinking that my Blood Angels Intercessors will be rocking them on the Sergeants instead of Chainswords. But I just worry about the design space. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Argive wrote: Do we know this is even true, or if it is true would it be the case for anyone else beside SM terminators (why would it be ?)? A random data sheet from a box could well be a typo
Sounds like another 2W cult CSM rumour to me..
If it is a typo, it would have been made twice, because the Sergeant and the regular Terminators have 3W. Not outside the possibility, but less likely.
I don't like the changes to the Power Weapons. If the Sword is +1 StrAP-3, what purpose does an Axe serve? And the Power Fist going to flat 2 damage is kinda sucky too. Otherwise, I am loving the idea of 3W Terminators. My brother is going to run Deathwing again if this ends up being true. I love Deathwing, even if they are a stupid hard unit to kill.
I'm not a fan of power armour/imperium in general, but terminators have always been one of my all time favourite units so I would like to see more of them on the table for sure.
I have a set of the Space Hulk Terminators that might see some play with my Blood Angels now. They look like they are going 5o be well worth their points now. And I always lament not running enough dudes in red with my BA. This will help that.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I don't like the changes to the Power Weapons. If the Sword is +1 StrAP-3, what purpose does an Axe serve?
Maybe the axe has a new profile as well?
I am assuming so. But then there is a ripple effect. Are Axes going to be Str+2, AP-2? If so, then what are Power Mauls going to be? It is just odd. Don't get me wrong, I LIKE that Power Swords are even better. I am thinking that my Blood Angels Intercessors will be rocking them on the Sergeants instead of Chainswords. But I just worry about the design space. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Argive wrote: Do we know this is even true, or if it is true would it be the case for anyone else beside SM terminators (why would it be ?)? A random data sheet from a box could well be a typo Sounds like another 2W cult CSM rumour to me..
If it is a typo, it would have been made twice, because the Sergeant and the regular Terminators have 3W. Not outside the possibility, but less likely.
I don't like the changes to the Power Weapons. If the Sword is +1 StrAP-3, what purpose does an Axe serve? And the Power Fist going to flat 2 damage is kinda sucky too. Otherwise, I am loving the idea of 3W Terminators. My brother is going to run Deathwing again if this ends up being true. I love Deathwing, even if they are a stupid hard unit to kill.
I'm not a fan of power armour/imperium in general, but terminators have always been one of my all time favourite units so I would like to see more of them on the table for sure.
I have a set of the Space Hulk Terminators that might see some play with my Blood Angels now. They look like they are going 5o be well worth their points now. And I always lament not running enough dudes in red with my BA. This will help that.
I have space hulk BA termies too! Kinda miffed they are BA as would have liked any space marines in BT/DA coolours. Quite looking forward to painting them one day.
Too bad GW didn't do indexes for 9th. It would be nice if they're going to do an edition change if they give each faction a fleshed-out baseline preview of what will change.
It would elevate all the factions to the same starting block, get rid of dead abilities and codexes could become "advanced" supplements that add more exciting and tactical options (that are pointed in some way, instead of just "free")
Basically, build out the bones and flesh the system out during its lifetime. But that's just not GW's way.
People need to chill a bit over the termi-sergeant having a +1S powersword. For all we know its a special piece of equipment unique to terminator sergeants, a kin to those of bladeguard veterans (to prevent the sgt. from "dying first" all the time) and not something that implies a massive future overhaul of powerweapons.
Wait and see guys, no reason to get worked up over something that might not even happen.
RandyMcStab wrote: I think axes (and the others) will just quietly go away and the future will only be swords and fists (and by extension hammers and chain fists).
Hammers and chainfists historically have always had separate profiles, power weapons however were just that, power weapons as a catch all.
RandyMcStab wrote: I think axes (and the others) will just quietly go away and the future will only be swords and fists (and by extension hammers and chain fists).
Hammers and chainfists historically have always had separate profiles, power weapons however were just that, power weapons as a catch all.
Eh historically power weapons, axes, knives etc were distinct profiles.
RandyMcStab wrote: I think axes (and the others) will just quietly go away and the future will only be swords and fists (and by extension hammers and chain fists).
Hammers and chainfists historically have always had separate profiles, power weapons however were just that, power weapons as a catch all.
Eh historically power weapons, axes, knives etc were distinct profiles.
RandyMcStab wrote: I think axes (and the others) will just quietly go away and the future will only be swords and fists (and by extension hammers and chain fists).
It will be model led - if most cc models have swords (as they do) then the main profile will be for swords and fists, if models remain / appear with hammers and axes the rules will follow, Same with spears, scythes, daggers, wet fish on a stick etc
Wait, two wound old marines! This is a real game changer! Now I can make Primaris-based counts as models for these guys without it being weird! I wonder if it is only the veterans or does this apply to the normal blokes too?
And assuming that this applies to Chaos, I will do as I promised and finally build that Chaos army I have planned for years!
Snugiraffe wrote: Also looks like all (Astartes?) chainswords are getting better.
This pic shows no extra rules for plasma pistols or lightning claws, though, nor hit modifiers for hammers/fists...
None of these compactified rule pages show any special rules; pretty blatantly by design, not least because they’ve been made as language agnostic as possible and having actually written rules either requires a mess of translations or multiple pages at which point you don’t need the symbols anymore. Notice they don’t even name the weapons?
So if the codex supplements are still valid after SM drops, we can see 5D MC Thunderhammers? Well, I guess they are 40pts for a character, but only 16pts in squads.
Veterans get an extra wound now. All SM Chainswords confirmed to be AP-1, Thunder Hammers are now 4D, Power Fists confirmed to be 2D, Power Axes Are +2/AP-2 (I was right!).
At the end of all this, SOMETHING is going to feel bizarrely paper-thin flimsy if every single marine is going up +1W and every single weapon that's good at killing marines is going up +1D or -1AP or +1S.
I strongly suspect it will be "Everyone else who isn't a marine." We know Necron datasheets aren't going up in wounds left and right, we've seen several of those.
But if it isn't that, then it'll be vehicles, most likely, getting shredded by fething 5D master crafted thunder hammers.
I would love to see Necron Immortals go to 2W, that would make a lot of sense and make for a more meaningful differentiation between them and Warriors.
(Lychguard and Pretorians could then be 3W to constitute the next tier)
I am thinking it is just Veterans that get the extra Wound. Which will put Sternguard and Vanguard on par with Intercessors and Terminators on par with Gravis. I hope they leave regular Marines at one wound. This will hopefully carry over to Chaos with Cult Marines, Chosen, and Terminators getting an extra wound, but regular CSM staying the same.
If they boost Cult Marines, the extra wound on Plague Marines and Rubric Marines would help Death Guard and Thousand Sons out immensely.
Oguhmek wrote: I would love to see Necron Immortals go to 2W, that would make a lot of sense and make for a more meaningful differentiation between them and Warriors.
(Lychguard and Pretorians could then be 3W to constitute the next tier)
Alas, that is not going to happen...
We already know that necrons do not seem to be getting this mass blanket stat inflation.
Lychguard and Praetorians are getting +1A, no other stat change.
And only Rods of Covenant got +1D, no other weapons changed. Particle casters actually got weaker it seems. And a few necron units like spyders got significant boosts (+2W, much better in melee, worse in shooting) but we're 100% not seeing W3 elite units, or W2 warriors (unless indomitus is not the final statline) so I would be surprised to see W2 immortals.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am thinking it is just Veterans that get the extra Wound. Which will put Sternguard and Vanguard on par with Intercessors and Terminators on par with Gravis. I hope they leave regular Marines at one wound. This will hopefully carry over to Chaos with Cult Marines, Chosen, and Terminators getting an extra wound, but regular CSM staying the same.
If they boost Cult Marines, the extra wound on Plague Marines and Rubric Marines would help Death Guard and Thousand Sons out immensely.
I hope it's only veterans.
It makes sense, and helps GW phase out part of the old range eventually but keeping well-beloved kits (f e. Terminators) relevant.
The moment Tactical Marines or Devastators get 2 wounds, that's dead Primaris, though.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am thinking it is just Veterans that get the extra Wound. Which will put Sternguard and Vanguard on par with Intercessors and Terminators on par with Gravis. I hope they leave regular Marines at one wound. This will hopefully carry over to Chaos with Cult Marines, Chosen, and Terminators getting an extra wound, but regular CSM staying the same.
If they boost Cult Marines, the extra wound on Plague Marines and Rubric Marines would help Death Guard and Thousand Sons out immensely.
I hope it's only veterans.
It makes sense, and helps GW phase out part of the old range eventually but keeping well-beloved kits (f e. Terminators) relevant.
The moment Tactical Marines or Devastators get 2 wounds, that's dead Primaris, though.
The concern I have is that Sternguard are 17 pts with their SI Boltguns compared to a 20 pt Intercessor. Not only would Sternguard be cheaper, but they would be *better*.
Oguhmek wrote: I would love to see Necron Immortals go to 2W, that would make a lot of sense and make for a more meaningful differentiation between them and Warriors.
(Lychguard and Pretorians could then be 3W to constitute the next tier)
Alas, that is not going to happen...
Well lychguard/praetorian thing isn't happening. Still slight chance for immortals though then likely would cost 20+ pts
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am thinking it is just Veterans that get the extra Wound. Which will put Sternguard and Vanguard on par with Intercessors and Terminators on par with Gravis. I hope they leave regular Marines at one wound. This will hopefully carry over to Chaos with Cult Marines, Chosen, and Terminators getting an extra wound, but regular CSM staying the same.
If they boost Cult Marines, the extra wound on Plague Marines and Rubric Marines would help Death Guard and Thousand Sons out immensely.
I hope it's only veterans.
It makes sense, and helps GW phase out part of the old range eventually but keeping well-beloved kits (f e. Terminators) relevant.
The moment Tactical Marines or Devastators get 2 wounds, that's dead Primaris, though.
The concern I have is that Sternguard are 17 pts with their SI Boltguns compared to a 20 pt Intercessor. Not only would Sternguard be cheaper, but they would be *better*.
No way are any of these models staying the same points with suddenly double the survivability. Expect to see 2W sternguard clocking in at 25-30 points,
I mean, ideally every datasheet we've seen so far will go up between 50-75% to counter both the additional stat boosts and whatever crazy BS they pack on to the Angels of Death special rule THIS time (my guess is that all hit rolls of 2+ generate 3 extra attacks against anything that doesn't have the SPACE MARINE keyword).
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am thinking it is just Veterans that get the extra Wound. Which will put Sternguard and Vanguard on par with Intercessors and Terminators on par with Gravis. I hope they leave regular Marines at one wound. This will hopefully carry over to Chaos with Cult Marines, Chosen, and Terminators getting an extra wound, but regular CSM staying the same.
If they boost Cult Marines, the extra wound on Plague Marines and Rubric Marines would help Death Guard and Thousand Sons out immensely.
I hope it's only veterans.
It makes sense, and helps GW phase out part of the old range eventually but keeping well-beloved kits (f e. Terminators) relevant.
The moment Tactical Marines or Devastators get 2 wounds, that's dead Primaris, though.
The concern I have is that Sternguard are 17 pts with their SI Boltguns compared to a 20 pt Intercessor. Not only would Sternguard be cheaper, but they would be *better*.
Well new codex is coming and these are for that. There will be point changes in codex.
No way are any of these models staying the same points with suddenly double the survivability. Expect to see 2W sternguard clocking in at 25-30 points
How much is +1 AP worth, while at the same time loosing obsec? 5 pts? 2 pts? Is it even worth anything? If intercessors remain 20 ppm then Sternguard are pretty much DoA if they are even near 25+ ppm.
Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect you're right. The new Bladeguard Veterans have three wounds. So perhaps the new logic is that the veteran marines get +1 to attacks, wounds and Ld?
Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect you're right. The new Bladeguard Veterans have three wounds. So perhaps the new logic is that the veteran marines get +1 to attacks, wounds and Ld?
My deathwatch would go from perma-shelved to "I might physically bury them in the backyard and dig them up when GW un-loses their mind"
It was odd to see everyone assuming the power sword would change but everything else would stay the same.
Definitely a ripple effect. I want to know what Power Mauls are now though. +3 Str? 2D? (Ooo, they would be like a poor man's power fist!). Also curious what the Lightning Claw icon means. But overall, I am liking the changes.
Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect you're right. The new Bladeguard Veterans have three wounds. So perhaps the new logic is that the veteran marines get +1 to attacks, wounds and Ld?
That seems to be the case. They it really makes them stand out against the regular Marine counterparts.
Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect you're right. The new Bladeguard Veterans have three wounds. So perhaps the new logic is that the veteran marines get +1 to attacks, wounds and Ld?
My deathwatch would go from perma-shelved to "I might physically bury them in the backyard and dig them up when GW un-loses their mind"
Why? Because they would be too good? They would likely get a hefty point increase. If Plague Marines and Rubric Marines would get the additional Veteran bonus, Deathwatch Veterans wouldn't be all that crazy.
I like the sound of Sternguard being W2 since I went have to really feel weirder about all mine being Mk3 and my Intercessor Stand-Ins being Mk3 with Shields. Interesting change.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why? Because they would be too good? They would likely get a hefty point increase. If Plague Marines and Rubric Marines would get the additional Veteran bonus, Deathwatch Veterans wouldn't be all that crazy.
Vets are already overcosted relative to Primaris options for Deathwatch. An additional points increase would only further cement the disparity. Even with an additional wound.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I like the sound of Sternguard being W2 since I went have to really feel weirder about all mine being Mk3 and my Intercessor Stand-Ins being Mk3 with Shields. Interesting change.
Yeah, my 20 Sternguard went onto the shelf after I realized they don't offer much over Intercessors. If they would be at their current points and still have their guns for free, they might see play again.
Sterling191 wrote:
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why? Because they would be too good? They would likely get a hefty point increase. If Plague Marines and Rubric Marines would get the additional Veteran bonus, Deathwatch Veterans wouldn't be all that crazy.
Vets are already overcosted relative to Primaris options for Deathwatch. An additional points increase would only further cement the disparity. Even with an additional wound.
Maybe an extra wound without a points increase then?
tneva82 wrote: Specifically loyal one. If you are loyal space marine you are master faction. If not npc is your status
Yeah, and that's why they had garbage rules for the 6th, 7th, and 3 years of 8th edition. I like how mere 6 months of SM being finally strong (then being hit by a big nerf, but it's not like whine cares about facts) somehow started mass revisionism that would make Eastasia from 1984 look like a paragon of free speech and discussion
Incidentally, Eldar and Tau were far more broken though the entirety of 6th and 7th edition than SM are now, and somehow, a lot of whiners who go about "npc" races back then just smugly said 'git gud' when someone pointed how garbage and unfun to play these races were. To the point that ""OP"" marines needed 500 points of free transports to compete, and even then it was mostly bunkering down in metal boxes and hoping you will somehow scrape minor victory on points before said two factions effortlessly table you.
Wake me up when SM get a titan throwing buckets of mortal wounds for 190 pts, can make the entire army only be hit on 6s, move and shoot twice per turn, or outright leave the table before the opponents turn to make them completely immune to shooting and melee. Oh, and no nerf at all to the above garbage in both editions. Poor xenos, instead of autowin they only have a handful of units stronger than anything SM can field now, whatever they will do?!
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why? Because they would be too good? They would likely get a hefty point increase. If Plague Marines and Rubric Marines would get the additional Veteran bonus, Deathwatch Veterans wouldn't be all that crazy.
Abso-goddamn-lutely they would be far too good, are you kidding? I put Deathwatch down on the table now and they outshoot Tau gunlines without even breaking a sweat, I would never put them on the table against someone not also bringing marines. with W3 terminators and W2 veterans they'd be hideous, and I have ZERO faith in GW's ability to reasonably price those buffs after the supplements and the garbage fire of the 9th ed points update.
Why anyone would think these changes are going to have any kind of common sense price boosts behind them or any kind of corresponding buffs to other factions is absolutely beyond me. Our current codex release schedule is basically back-to-back space marine codexes.
It was odd to see everyone assuming the power sword would change but everything else would stay the same.
Definitely a ripple effect. I want to know what Power Mauls are now though. +3 Str? 2D? (Ooo, they would be like a poor man's power fist!). Also curious what the Lightning Claw icon means. But overall, I am liking the changes.
The Indomitus chaplain's crozius gained +1S, so I'd expect power mauls to be similar.
The LC icon (I assume you mean the star in the circle) just means 'user's strength,' same as the chainsword.
Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect you're right. The new Bladeguard Veterans have three wounds. So perhaps the new logic is that the veteran marines get +1 to attacks, wounds and Ld?
There's a veteran intercessor entry in the new codex contents from a screen shot I think from memory, so they'd be up to 3 wounds following that logic. Leaves chaos marines in an odd spot unless they're going to finally separate renegades from traitor legions.
Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect you're right. The new Bladeguard Veterans have three wounds. So perhaps the new logic is that the veteran marines get +1 to attacks, wounds and Ld?
There's a veteran intercessor entry in the new codex contents from a screen shot I think from memory, so they'd be up to 3 wounds following that logic. Leaves chaos marines in an odd spot unless they're going to finally separate renegades from traitor legions.
Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect you're right. The new Bladeguard Veterans have three wounds. So perhaps the new logic is that the veteran marines get +1 to attacks, wounds and Ld?
There's a veteran intercessor entry in the new codex contents from a screen shot I think from memory, so they'd be up to 3 wounds following that logic. Leaves chaos marines in an odd spot unless they're going to finally separate renegades from traitor legions.
Why wouldn't veterans of both 'types' exist?
They would, but a veteran renegade is essentially a chosen, where as a vanguard vet etc. is rocking the same experience equivalent as a legion marine.
Having mini marines at 1 wound then suddenly become 2 wounds because they painted a star on a shoulder makes no sense, likewise a veteran mini marine at 100 years service being 2 wounds but someone with 10k years of experience fighting in a hellscape being 1 wound does't make sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Quote from Armillion over on B&C "Also, opened one of the new box style vindicators last week and saw that HK missiles are apparently S10 now?"
Stormonu wrote: Too bad GW didn't do indexes for 9th. It would be nice if they're going to do an edition change if they give each faction a fleshed-out baseline preview of what will change.
It would elevate all the factions to the same starting block, get rid of dead abilities and codexes could become "advanced" supplements that add more exciting and tactical options (that are pointed in some way, instead of just "free")
Basically, build out the bones and flesh the system out during its lifetime. But that's just not GW's way.
Honestly I still wouldn't rule this out for several reasons:
It would be really weird to change generic weapons like power fists or multi-meltas for just one faction, without changing it for all the others.
The strange points level decisions would make more sense if they were planning to revise a bunch of units & wargear.
One of the early reviews by 9E playtesters (I think TTT) heavily implied that something else was coming they couldn't talk about yet.
We know new units are coming for several factions, but there's no sign yet of an accompanying codex or expansion book
GW could plausibly print something like "Index: Imperium 2020" and "Index: Xenos 2020", where some units & wargear recieve revised rules to supersede the codex. One cheap book like the original indexes can cover several factions at once, and means they recieve major updates without needing a whole new codex. GW can sell that to a wide range of players, or simply put the updated rules in their app to encourage people to subscribe.
I'm not following. 'Renegades' are former loyalist marines fighting in real space for essentially a lifetime. They'd have just as many veterans as a loyalist chapter.
Legionnaires are subject to the timey-whimey nonsense of the Eye. When it comes down to it, most don't have 10000 years of battlefield experience. Talons and First Claw of the night lords had 300 (well within the normal life span of loyalists), Bile was... Inactive for indeterminate stretches of time, Ahriman's journey involves powering down to petty sorcerer levels for an extended period, followed by an actual time loop, etc
Either is equally qualified to claim whatever GW means by 'veteran' status.
Voss wrote: I'm not following. 'Renegades' are former loyalist marines fighting in real space for essentially a lifetime. They'd have just as many veterans as a loyalist chapter.
Legionnaires are subject to the timey-whimey nonsense of the Eye. When it comes down to it, most don't have 10000 years of battlefield experience. Talons and First Claw of the night lords had 300 (well within the normal life span of loyalists), Bile was... Inactive for indeterminate stretches of time, Ahriman's journey involves powering down to petty sorcerer levels for an extended period, followed by an actual time loop, etc
Either is equally qualified to claim whatever GW means by 'veteran' status.
Look at it through this perspective: Renegades are loyalist chapters who have turned, often still with the same equipment and equivalent experience, so it makes sense for their profiles to match the classic marines. The basic marine will have a tac marine stat line. If tacs have 2 wounds, it makes sense that a basic chaos marine does by extension. No problem so far.
Other option is veterans get +1 wound so classic marine veteran getting 2 wounds and a tac marine having 1. A renegade chaos marine is therefore 1 wound. An Iron warriors legionary who has been around since istvaan may well have 300+ years real time experience - that may be more than a vanguard veteran. The vangaurd veteran gets 2 wounds, but the iron warrior is still a "chaos space marine" so gets a tac marines stats - 1 wound -despite being likely more experienced than the vanguard vet.
Voss wrote: I'm not following. 'Renegades' are former loyalist marines fighting in real space for essentially a lifetime. They'd have just as many veterans as a loyalist chapter.
Legionnaires are subject to the timey-whimey nonsense of the Eye. When it comes down to it, most don't have 10000 years of battlefield experience. Talons and First Claw of the night lords had 300 (well within the normal life span of loyalists), Bile was... Inactive for indeterminate stretches of time, Ahriman's journey involves powering down to petty sorcerer levels for an extended period, followed by an actual time loop, etc
Either is equally qualified to claim whatever GW means by 'veteran' status.
Look at it through this perspective: Renegades are loyalist chapters who have turned, often still with the same equipment and equivalent experience, so it makes sense for their profiles to match the classic marines. The basic marine will have a tac marine stat line. If tacs have 2 wounds, it makes sense that a basic chaos marine does by extension. No problem so far.
Other option is veterans get +1 wound so classic marine veteran getting 2 wounds and a tac marine having 1. A renegade chaos marine is therefore 1 wound. An Iron warriors legionary who has been around since istvaan may well have 300+ years real time experience - that may be more than a vanguard veteran. The vangaurd veteran gets 2 wounds, but the iron warrior is still a "chaos space marine" so gets a tac marines stats - 1 wound -despite being likely more experienced than the vanguard vet.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Your Istvaan vet is a Chosen (which would presumably have 2W), and your theoretical 1-wound CSM trooper is a replacement recruit that we know all the chaos legions have. A lot of ink has been spilled on chaos legions scrambling for gene seed and recruits.
So if additional wound veteran you needs a complex explanation (which I'm not really convinced it does), it already exists.
Voss wrote: I'm not following. 'Renegades' are former loyalist marines fighting in real space for essentially a lifetime. They'd have just as many veterans as a loyalist chapter.
Legionnaires are subject to the timey-whimey nonsense of the Eye. When it comes down to it, most don't have 10000 years of battlefield experience. Talons and First Claw of the night lords had 300 (well within the normal life span of loyalists), Bile was... Inactive for indeterminate stretches of time, Ahriman's journey involves powering down to petty sorcerer levels for an extended period, followed by an actual time loop, etc
Either is equally qualified to claim whatever GW means by 'veteran' status.
Look at it through this perspective: Renegades are loyalist chapters who have turned, often still with the same equipment and equivalent experience, so it makes sense for their profiles to match the classic marines. The basic marine will have a tac marine stat line. If tacs have 2 wounds, it makes sense that a basic chaos marine does by extension. No problem so far.
Other option is veterans get +1 wound so classic marine veteran getting 2 wounds and a tac marine having 1. A renegade chaos marine is therefore 1 wound. An Iron warriors legionary who has been around since istvaan may well have 300+ years real time experience - that may be more than a vanguard veteran. The vangaurd veteran gets 2 wounds, but the iron warrior is still a "chaos space marine" so gets a tac marines stats - 1 wound -despite being likely more experienced than the vanguard vet.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Your Istvaan vet is a Chosen (which would presumably have 2W), and your theoretical 1-wound CSM trooper is a replacement recruit that we know all the chaos legions have. A lot of ink has been spilled on chaos legions scrambling for gene seed and recruits.
So if additional wound veteran you needs a complex explanation (which I'm not really convinced it does), it already exists.
Ok but you'd then have to limit veterans of the long war to chosen only really at that point. Either way it'll be interesting to see how it'll be tackled and I dare say there'll be some teeth gnashing regardless.
Dudeface wrote: Ok but you'd then have to limit veterans of the long war to chosen only really at that point. Either way it'll be interesting to see how it'll be tackled and I dare say there'll be some teeth gnashing regardless.
Well, there are a couple ways of dealing with it (including pre-game strats, similar to the 'veteran intercessor' strat in the current SM codex), but definitely yeah, there will be teeth gnashing, warranted or not, even if they somehow find the 'world's best' solution
Ignore-able or not will be the important question.
Deathwatch will be interesting, considering all their troops are veterans in name...
Anyway, I actually don't mind as an imperial player chaos marines getting +1 wound, especially if they are from the traitor legions and not renegade marines (a distinction that should be made) as they will all be veterans of some sort.
Anyway, give them two wounds, just cost them appropriately and I'm all good, it would offset the imbalances caused between chaos and imperium in that they should fairly be a mirror of each other in ways, but with the flavour being super different... Chaos don't get combat doctrines, but increased durability. Renegade marines get combat doctrines (of some sort) but no +1 wound... Get the point costs right and it's all good.
Stormonu wrote: Too bad GW didn't do indexes for 9th. It would be nice if they're going to do an edition change if they give each faction a fleshed-out baseline preview of what will change.
It would elevate all the factions to the same starting block, get rid of dead abilities and codexes could become "advanced" supplements that add more exciting and tactical options (that are pointed in some way, instead of just "free")
Basically, build out the bones and flesh the system out during its lifetime. But that's just not GW's way.
Honestly I still wouldn't rule this out for several reasons:
It would be really weird to change generic weapons like power fists or multi-meltas for just one faction, without changing it for all the others.
The strange points level decisions would make more sense if they were planning to revise a bunch of units & wargear.
One of the early reviews by 9E playtesters (I think TTT) heavily implied that something else was coming they couldn't talk about yet.
We know new units are coming for several factions, but there's no sign yet of an accompanying codex or expansion book
GW could plausibly print something like "Index: Imperium 2020" and "Index: Xenos 2020", where some units & wargear recieve revised rules to supersede the codex. One cheap book like the original indexes can cover several factions at once, and means they recieve major updates without needing a whole new codex. GW can sell that to a wide range of players, or simply put the updated rules in their app to encourage people to subscribe.
There's already multiple melta weapons same name different rules.
And you don't precost new stats you get when you will repoint things anyway...codex has points in it you know? You never use new rules ca costs
If they raise regular marines to two wounds doesn’t that make Primaris less relevant/ special? An the size difference would be unnecessary at that point.
John D Law wrote: If they raise regular marines to two wounds doesn’t that make Primaris less relevant/ special? An the size difference would be unnecessary at that point.
And thus the marine model range update is complete. Post indomitus all the new recruits are primaris, and any smaller models are clearly veteran firstborn.
Might even see the more rigid Crusade era combat dogmas even give way to a more flexible approach that adds weapon specialists to Intercessor squads, as the marines find themselves fighting less and less in large formations as the crusade fleets split up and garrison worlds assigned...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Watch as they give Chosen W2 but forget to give Havocs, monstrous T5 marines, W2.
So I would be delighted to have my Havoks have 2W. Havoks are probably my favorite unit within the Codex, and one of the best Chaos kits that they produce!
I still think that they flubbed the perfect opportunity to include a new kit for Chosen along with the release of Abaddon. A five man box of Chosen with combi-weapons, power weapons and spikey gubbins would have been great.
Stormonu wrote: Too bad GW didn't do indexes for 9th. It would be nice if they're going to do an edition change if they give each faction a fleshed-out baseline preview of what will change.
It would elevate all the factions to the same starting block, get rid of dead abilities and codexes could become "advanced" supplements that add more exciting and tactical options (that are pointed in some way, instead of just "free")
Basically, build out the bones and flesh the system out during its lifetime. But that's just not GW's way.
Honestly I still wouldn't rule this out for several reasons:
It would be really weird to change generic weapons like power fists or multi-meltas for just one faction, without changing it for all the others.
The strange points level decisions would make more sense if they were planning to revise a bunch of units & wargear.
One of the early reviews by 9E playtesters (I think TTT) heavily implied that something else was coming they couldn't talk about yet.
We know new units are coming for several factions, but there's no sign yet of an accompanying codex or expansion book
GW could plausibly print something like "Index: Imperium 2020" and "Index: Xenos 2020", where some units & wargear recieve revised rules to supersede the codex. One cheap book like the original indexes can cover several factions at once, and means they recieve major updates without needing a whole new codex. GW can sell that to a wide range of players, or simply put the updated rules in their app to encourage people to subscribe.
I think indexes aren't likely at all, we know Codexes are coming in October, why would they put out indexes after codexes? I do remember reading that GW has tested all of the the codexes at the same time, therefore it stands to reason all the codexes are written. It also stands to reason that we won't get new ones for specific chapters. It's been said many times that Codexes from PA onward were written to be 9th compatible. We're most likely to see new books for Eldar, DE, Orks, Tau, GSC, Chaos Deamons and Guard before we're likely to see SoB, Chaos Marines and the like.
It's been said many times that Codexes from PA onward were written to be 9th compatible. We're most likely to see new books for Eldar, DE, Orks, Tau, GSC, Chaos Deamons and Guard before we're likely to see SoB, Chaos Marines and the like.
Reading the new rules and the Codexes that are "compatable", its clear that was and is total BS.
Marine codex was said to be compatable and is the first. It will depend on their model release schedule who goes after Necrons - nothing else will matter.
We know that some armies are getting Junior commanders - good chance it those gettign codexes.
I think it will be
Marines and Necrons
Space Marine Supplements - Wolves and Angels
Sisters of Battle (based on wish to have female army prominant (irnoic really)
Then its harder to predict.
Dark Eldar seems a good possibilty
Tau PA with the new Tau codex, Blood of Baal with Blood Angels and Tyranids etc... all the strategems and relics? Some of these books just came out for crying out loud!
It's been said many times that Codexes from PA onward were written to be 9th compatible. We're most likely to see new books for Eldar, DE, Orks, Tau, GSC, Chaos Deamons and Guard before we're likely to see SoB, Chaos Marines and the like.
Reading the new rules and the Codexes that are "compatable", its clear that was and is total BS.
Marine codex was said to be compatable and is the first. It will depend on their model release schedule who goes after Necrons - nothing else will matter.
We know that some armies are getting Junior commanders - good chance it those gettign codexes.
I think it will be
Marines and Necrons
Space Marine Supplements - Wolves and Angels
Sisters of Battle (based on wish to have female army prominant (irnoic really)
Then its harder to predict.
Dark Eldar seems a good possibilty
There is no reality where the sisters of battle update doesn't come out within 4-5 months of the end of the edition. And don't give me that 'the book came out in december!!!' nonsense, the army was unplayable until march.
Whatever gw doesn't transfer to new codex since they have already said all won't be transfered. Would be typical to not transfer best stuff. Like have specialist mobs in codex but leave kustom jobs off
It's been said many times that Codexes from PA onward were written to be 9th compatible. We're most likely to see new books for Eldar, DE, Orks, Tau, GSC, Chaos Deamons and Guard before we're likely to see SoB, Chaos Marines and the like.
Reading the new rules and the Codexes that are "compatable", its clear that was and is total BS.
Marine codex was said to be compatable and is the first. It will depend on their model release schedule who goes after Necrons - nothing else will matter.
We know that some armies are getting Junior commanders - good chance it those gettign codexes.
I think it will be
Marines and Necrons
Space Marine Supplements - Wolves and Angels
Sisters of Battle (based on wish to have female army prominant (ironic really)
Then its harder to predict.
Dark Eldar seems a good possibilty
There is no reality where the sisters of battle update doesn't come out within 4-5 months of the end of the edition. And don't give me that 'the book came out in december!!!' nonsense, the army was unplayable until march.
Same thing was said a few years ago about Any chance of a new Sisters of Battle army - and yet here we are.
All depends on the models that they have made, what codexes need updates has no relevance to GW.
If the only new model the SoB get is the Palantine that's been previewed, unless they're changing substantial army-level rules, there's no need for a new book.
If any factions should be early in the cycle due to new releases since their previous codex, it's AdMech and Daemons, even if they didn't get anything else (other than the upcoming AdMech character).
Whatever gw doesn't transfer to new codex since they have already said all won't be transfered. Would be typical to not transfer best stuff. Like have specialist mobs in codex but leave kustom jobs off
They said all the Psychic Awakening stuff wouldn't be transferred to codices.
Remember that Psychic Awakening books also include missions.
It's been said many times that Codexes from PA onward were written to be 9th compatible. We're most likely to see new books for Eldar, DE, Orks, Tau, GSC, Chaos Deamons and Guard before we're likely to see SoB, Chaos Marines and the like.
Reading the new rules and the Codexes that are "compatable", its clear that was and is total BS.
Marine codex was said to be compatable and is the first. It will depend on their model release schedule who goes after Necrons - nothing else will matter.
We know that some armies are getting Junior commanders - good chance it those gettign codexes.
I think it will be
Marines and Necrons
Space Marine Supplements - Wolves and Angels
Sisters of Battle (based on wish to have female army prominant (irnoic really)
Then its harder to predict.
Dark Eldar seems a good possibilty
they are compatable. you've been around for a bit Morden. this is just like 4th edition codices in 5th edition etc.
It's been said many times that Codexes from PA onward were written to be 9th compatible. We're most likely to see new books for Eldar, DE, Orks, Tau, GSC, Chaos Deamons and Guard before we're likely to see SoB, Chaos Marines and the like.
Reading the new rules and the Codexes that are "compatable", its clear that was and is total BS.
It isn't. The 9th point costs have issues, but the rules in the codexes largely work fine with the 9th edition rules. Very few things create a divide by zero error that you just can't parse with the rulebook and the codex.
In the very nice and accurate sense of compatibility, they're fine.
Like all edition changes the balance isn't quite there, because different tactics have become more or less valid. (like a focus on objectives over auto-win because everything on the other side of the table is dead already).
tneva82 wrote: GW doesn't give NPC factions new codex so soon. It's NPC faction. They get tiny support. And one extra model is hardly need for new codex.
except Necrons are getting a new codex around the same time tneva. or did that escape your notice?
Voss wrote: I'm not following. 'Renegades' are former loyalist marines fighting in real space for essentially a lifetime. They'd have just as many veterans as a loyalist chapter.
Legionnaires are subject to the timey-whimey nonsense of the Eye. When it comes down to it, most don't have 10000 years of battlefield experience. Talons and First Claw of the night lords had 300 (well within the normal life span of loyalists), Bile was... Inactive for indeterminate stretches of time, Ahriman's journey involves powering down to petty sorcerer levels for an extended period, followed by an actual time loop, etc
Either is equally qualified to claim whatever GW means by 'veteran' status.
Look at it through this perspective: Renegades are loyalist chapters who have turned, often still with the same equipment and equivalent experience, so it makes sense for their profiles to match the classic marines. The basic marine will have a tac marine stat line. If tacs have 2 wounds, it makes sense that a basic chaos marine does by extension. No problem so far.
Other option is veterans get +1 wound so classic marine veteran getting 2 wounds and a tac marine having 1. A renegade chaos marine is therefore 1 wound. An Iron warriors legionary who has been around since istvaan may well have 300+ years real time experience - that may be more than a vanguard veteran. The vangaurd veteran gets 2 wounds, but the iron warrior is still a "chaos space marine" so gets a tac marines stats - 1 wound -despite being likely more experienced than the vanguard vet.
I don't really buy the only "veterans get +1 wound". They're wearing the same armor. Being more experienced usually doesn't make you twice as tough.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't really buy the only "veterans get +1 wound". They're wearing the same armor. Being more experienced usually doesn't make you twice as tough.
Same thing was said a few years ago about Any chance of a new Sisters of Battle army - and yet here we are.
All depends on the models that they have made, what codexes need updates has no relevance to GW.
GW doesn't give NPC factions new codex so soon. It's NPC faction. They get tiny support. And one extra model is hardly need for new codex.
Sisters got a model in PA which was a shock to me.....IF they sold well there may be more. Might not.
Apart from Marines its hard to know what they will make next next.
Still not enough to need new codex.
And you do know term leadtimes right? If they decide to new sisters based on sales of that model it would be coming around this time next year earliest.
I think indexes aren't likely at all, we know Codexes are coming in October, why would they put out indexes after codexes? I do remember reading that GW has tested all of the the codexes at the same time, therefore it stands to reason all the codexes are written. It also stands to reason that we won't get new ones for specific chapters. It's been said many times that Codexes from PA onward were written to be 9th compatible. We're most likely to see new books for Eldar, DE, Orks, Tau, GSC, Chaos Deamons and Guard before we're likely to see SoB, Chaos Marines and the like.
I'd *really* like to see the quote where they were ALL tested at the same time, because I doubt more than a handful have even had pen put to paper beyond the copy + paste lore.
Maybe they could call them, and hear me out on that, "Celestians"! They would be the veteran Sisters of the Order. And, like, they would use close combat weapons instead of just bolter/special weapons and bolt pistols .
For those interested TTC are releasing more necron themed bases and it sounds like they are also releasing base-sets which likely means a one-purchase set of resin bases for boxed sets like Indomitus (probably ones for the other starter sets and any getting started set for necrons in the future too)
Same thing was said a few years ago about Any chance of a new Sisters of Battle army - and yet here we are.
All depends on the models that they have made, what codexes need updates has no relevance to GW.
GW doesn't give NPC factions new codex so soon. It's NPC faction. They get tiny support. And one extra model is hardly need for new codex.
Sisters got a model in PA which was a shock to me.....IF they sold well there may be more. Might not.
Apart from Marines its hard to know what they will make next next.
Still not enough to need new codex.
And you do know term leadtimes right? If they decide to new sisters based on sales of that model it would be coming around this time next year earliest.
At this time Sisters sales will naturally not figure into anything released for Sisters for the better part of another year. Regardless of that, I'm not sure why you insist on "need" when it comes to a new codex. First, we get a new edition with a new feature called Crusade that will get pages in every new codex. Plus at least one new unit entry. Material for a new codex is there, therefore there is no reason to rule out that a Sisters codex is coming. Second, Sisters are a fully supported plastic army now. GW will be happy to let you rebuy the same rules over and over, as quickly as they think they can get away with.And with Sisters not being a current codex and Crusade adding something not currently in the codex, they might just think they can get away with it within a year of release of the last one.
Personally I wouldn't mind a new codex if we also get plastic Crusaders and Death Cult Assassins with it. Would be easier to justify a new book so soon if there was a larger model release with it, but like I said, it's not like GW needs that justification.
You may also point to how prominently Sisters were featured in the marketing leading up to 9th ed. It's not the strongest point since they're brand new and GW has an interest in advertising them to get more sales, but it isn't something I'd easily dismiss either.
Same thing was said a few years ago about Any chance of a new Sisters of Battle army - and yet here we are.
All depends on the models that they have made, what codexes need updates has no relevance to GW.
GW doesn't give NPC factions new codex so soon. It's NPC faction. They get tiny support. And one extra model is hardly need for new codex.
Sisters got a model in PA which was a shock to me.....IF they sold well there may be more. Might not.
Apart from Marines its hard to know what they will make next next.
Still not enough to need new codex.
And you do know term leadtimes right? If they decide to new sisters based on sales of that model it would be coming around this time next year earliest.
The only "need" GW has is to sell new models - if they have made some more Sisters for a new wave there will be a new Codex, if not probably not for some time.
I don't know about a new SIster 'dex already. I think it's more likely we'll start seeing more campaign books ALA Vigilus/Psychic Awakening to serve as a stop-gap to new codexes. It's also a good way to get people buying yearly books for the same price as a 'dex, but without people feeling like they're being taken for a ride (see: Marine player reactions to a new 'dex in less than a year) even though it results in the same thing for GW.
Marshal Loss wrote: The existence of Crusade alone makes a new Sisters book early-ish in 9th seem rather likely to me.
And other armies don't need crusade stuff? What makes sisters so special snowflake? When in GW's history has NPC faction got 2 codex in less than a year?
Marshal Loss wrote: The existence of Crusade alone makes a new Sisters book early-ish in 9th seem rather likely to me.
And other armies don't need crusade stuff? What makes sisters so special snowflake? When in GW's history has NPC faction got 2 codex in less than a year?
Nothing. So we have to look at how GW has acted in the past to try to guess how it will act in the future. I think the best word is: erratically. So Sisters getting a codex is possible, though unlikely, lol.
Voss wrote: I'm not following. 'Renegades' are former loyalist marines fighting in real space for essentially a lifetime. They'd have just as many veterans as a loyalist chapter.
Legionnaires are subject to the timey-whimey nonsense of the Eye. When it comes down to it, most don't have 10000 years of battlefield experience. Talons and First Claw of the night lords had 300 (well within the normal life span of loyalists), Bile was... Inactive for indeterminate stretches of time, Ahriman's journey involves powering down to petty sorcerer levels for an extended period, followed by an actual time loop, etc
Either is equally qualified to claim whatever GW means by 'veteran' status.
Look at it through this perspective: Renegades are loyalist chapters who have turned, often still with the same equipment and equivalent experience, so it makes sense for their profiles to match the classic marines. The basic marine will have a tac marine stat line. If tacs have 2 wounds, it makes sense that a basic chaos marine does by extension. No problem so far.
Other option is veterans get +1 wound so classic marine veteran getting 2 wounds and a tac marine having 1. A renegade chaos marine is therefore 1 wound. An Iron warriors legionary who has been around since istvaan may well have 300+ years real time experience - that may be more than a vanguard veteran. The vangaurd veteran gets 2 wounds, but the iron warrior is still a "chaos space marine" so gets a tac marines stats - 1 wound -despite being likely more experienced than the vanguard vet.
I don't really buy the only "veterans get +1 wound". They're wearing the same armor. Being more experienced usually doesn't make you twice as tough.
I am psyched for my W2 aspect warriors and my W2 scions and my W2 bloodb-
my W2 bloo-
.....
I put them right here I swear.
Where is that datasheet for my bloodbrides? Is it underneath this new datasheet they put out for veteran Intercessors, a unit that doesn't have a kit besides the basic intercessor kit and is basically just going to be a minor stat improvement you represent with a different paintjob?
Some real questions there, 30" boltguns for classic marines?
Largely flattening out the differences with primaris is a positive, given that their rules had been reflecting a much larger difference than their lore described. (Initially, if you assumed a naked marine and a naked primaris, then 2 wounds and 2 attacks literally doubled the impact one would have. The lack of double the firepower and existence of multi-wounding weapons were the only counter-factors.)
My one caveat is that if tacs are two wound, so should be many traditionally "marine equivalent" units other armies have. Using the other army they're boxed with as an example, they seem to be continuing a trend of devaluing Necron Warriors into zombie hordes so if they're relatively cheap 1 wound models that's one thing, but Immortals should absolutely be two wound if marines are. They used to be T5!
Some real questions there, 30" boltguns for classic marines?
Largely flattening out the differences with primaris is a positive, given that their rules had been reflecting a much larger difference than their lore described. (Initially, if you assumed a naked marine and a naked primaris, then 2 wounds and 2 attacks literally doubled the impact one would have. The lack of double the firepower and existence of multi-wounding weapons were the only counter-factors.)
My one caveat is that if tacs are two wound, so should be many traditionally "marine equivalent" units other armies have. Using the other army they're boxed with as an example, they seem to be continuing a trend of devaluing Necron Warriors into zombie hordes so if they're relatively cheap 1 wound models that's one thing, but Immortals should absolutely be two wound if marines are. They used to be T5!
Yeah,so positive it makes fluff into nonsense.
"Hey Guiliman, I spent 10000 years improving Space Marines and their equipment! War is changed forever!"
"Yeah? Tell me the groundbreaking advances!"
"Ermmm... Primaris are huge, but no more tough than before. They also strike a bit faster. And their bigger and better guns are actually the same. But pierce armour a bit better.
Why do you say nothing, Guiliman? Are you overwhelmed?"
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
At BS2 they are firing at their old hit rate anyway if they deepstrike. They also got a T bonus, and the weapon is much better.
They got buffed for sure, I'm curious to see their special rules.
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
They went up to BS2 though, so will still be hitting on 3's the turn they come in, then out to 36" on 2's after that. Not bad really. Also better strength and AP on their guns.
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
At BS2 they are firing at their old hit rate anyway if they deepstrike. They also got a T bonus, and the weapon is much better.
They got buffed for sure, I'm curious to see their special rules.
Much better? 2 shots better than 1. Rarely you don't have target nearby anyway. Mortal output halved, less shots means also less rolls to be made. You get s5 vs t4 bonus vs 3+ for half the mortals.
Some real questions there, 30" boltguns for classic marines?
Largely flattening out the differences with primaris is a positive, given that their rules had been reflecting a much larger difference than their lore described. (Initially, if you assumed a naked marine and a naked primaris, then 2 wounds and 2 attacks literally doubled the impact one would have. The lack of double the firepower and existence of multi-wounding weapons were the only counter-factors.)
My one caveat is that if tacs are two wound, so should be many traditionally "marine equivalent" units other armies have. Using the other army they're boxed with as an example, they seem to be continuing a trend of devaluing Necron Warriors into zombie hordes so if they're relatively cheap 1 wound models that's one thing, but Immortals should absolutely be two wound if marines are. They used to be T5!
Yeah,so positive it makes fluff into nonsense.
"Hey Guiliman, I spent 10000 years improving Space Marines and their equipment! War is changed forever!"
"Yeah? Tell me the groundbreaking advances!"
"Ermmm... Primaris are huge, but no more tough than before. They also strike a bit faster. And their bigger and better guns are actually the same. But pierce armour a bit better.
Why do you say nothing, Guiliman? Are you overwhelmed?"
In the fluff their genetic expression is not very large on the scale of granularity the tabletop represents though, is the thing. The new equipment is the much larger deal, except in that tampering with marine genetics could be interpreted as heretical from a religious standpoint.
What's with all the range increases in an edition that shrinks board size?
It's also quite odd to see translated unit names again (different from what they used to be, too). GW got rid of them after Chapterhouse and I did not expect to see that again. Really, I'm still not expecting threm to make it back to the unit entries in the codex. Very confusing.
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
At BS2 they are firing at their old hit rate anyway if they deepstrike. They also got a T bonus, and the weapon is much better.
They got buffed for sure, I'm curious to see their special rules.
Much better? 2 shots better than 1. Rarely you don't have target nearby anyway. Mortal output halved, less shots means also less rolls to be made. You get s5 vs t4 bonus vs 3+ for half the mortals.
The 2 shots were absolute garbage. Its a total red heron argument. Now when they intercept they will actually wreck the unit they were interrupting. That strength 5 and -2 is a very big deal and honestly I am glad they are 36" range now. You can always just deploy them near a lord and enjoy sniping for once with rerolls to wound to boot.
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
At BS2 they are firing at their old hit rate anyway if they deepstrike. They also got a T bonus, and the weapon is much better.
They got buffed for sure, I'm curious to see their special rules.
Much better? 2 shots better than 1. Rarely you don't have target nearby anyway. Mortal output halved, less shots means also less rolls to be made. You get s5 vs t4 bonus vs 3+ for half the mortals.
The 2 shots were absolute garbage. Its a total red heron argument. Now when they intercept they will actually wreck the unit they were interrupting. That strength 5 and -2 is a very big deal and honestly I am glad they are 36" range now. You can always just deploy them near a lord and enjoy sniping for once with rerolls to wound to boot.
You realize right vs 3+ double shot is equal to -2? That -2 is better only vs 2+ armour? So s5 vs s4 vs half the mortals. I doubt s5 vs t4 is worth that much. actually math shows old stat is better vs t4 3+. ...
So much for wrecking target. Ps vs sob and anything with 4+ or less old is better
Maybe check math in future well still end result is damage is junk either way as this isn't improvement but side step so still just 5 to land to unguarded objective if you really want to use them
Those deathmarks are much better at traditional sniping, but will need some interesting special rule wrangling if they’re to keep their old lore as ambushers pulling the space robot equivalent to a drive by assassination with an assault rifle.
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
At BS2 they are firing at their old hit rate anyway if they deepstrike. They also got a T bonus, and the weapon is much better.
They got buffed for sure, I'm curious to see their special rules.
Much better? 2 shots better than 1. Rarely you don't have target nearby anyway. Mortal output halved, less shots means also less rolls to be made. You get s5 vs t4 bonus vs 3+ for half the mortals.
The 2 shots were absolute garbage. Its a total red heron argument. Now when they intercept they will actually wreck the unit they were interrupting. That strength 5 and -2 is a very big deal and honestly I am glad they are 36" range now. You can always just deploy them near a lord and enjoy sniping for once with rerolls to wound to boot.
You realize right vs 3+ double shot is equal to -2? That -2 is better only vs 2+ armour? So s5 vs s4 vs half the mortals. I doubt s5 vs t4 is worth that much. actually math shows old stat is better vs t4 3+. ...
So much for wrecking target. Ps vs sob and anything with 4+ or less old is better
Maybe check math in future well still end result is damage is junk either way as this isn't improvement but side step so still just 5 to land to unguarded objective if you really want to use them
Maybe don't lean on pure math hammer to "win" your arguments. Death marks didn't do crap before and a massive issue they had was the lack of range strength and AP. Again, your acting as though these things were always guarenteed landing every model within 12" of their target.
If you were doing that in 8th let alone 9th where DS is MUCH harder, I'd suggest you stop clubbing seals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: Those deathmarks are much better at traditional sniping, but will need some interesting special rule wrangling if they’re to keep their old lore as ambushers pulling the space robot equivalent to a drive by assassination with an assault rifle.
Which I am sure they will get. Along with some bonkers stratagem no doubt. Which is what makes Tneva defending the old garbage profile all the more comical. I mean, suddenly the old version is good? What a jokester.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't really buy the only "veterans get +1 wound". They're wearing the same armor. Being more experienced usually doesn't make you twice as tough.
Then why do Marine characters have more than W1?
Well, they're characters. I suppose it could be conceivable that tacs are like aspects where the Sarge gets W2.
hmm table top tactics said something interesting (they were codex play testers) when 9th came out. They seemed to know other big things happening but kept very quiet about what theyknew.
Perhaps light infantry isnt actually as done for as we think.
Seems to me what GW look to be doing is buffing the hell out of eliter infantry and i can guarantee it'll come with a pts cost.
A grot or cultist by being a model carries a certain value so by moving elite stuff up a notch in punch and pts it frees up the 0-20pt range for lighter infantry.
if i'm making any sense? e.g. currently at the 0-20pt level there inst enough variance in points (20 levels) to encompass the nuance and abilities present in all units.
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
At BS2 they are firing at their old hit rate anyway if they deepstrike. They also got a T bonus, and the weapon is much better.
They got buffed for sure, I'm curious to see their special rules.
Much better? 2 shots better than 1. Rarely you don't have target nearby anyway. Mortal output halved, less shots means also less rolls to be made. You get s5 vs t4 bonus vs 3+ for half the mortals.
The 2 shots were absolute garbage. Its a total red heron argument. Now when they intercept they will actually wreck the unit they were interrupting. That strength 5 and -2 is a very big deal and honestly I am glad they are 36" range now. You can always just deploy them near a lord and enjoy sniping for once with rerolls to wound to boot.
You realize right vs 3+ double shot is equal to -2? That -2 is better only vs 2+ armour? So s5 vs s4 vs half the mortals. I doubt s5 vs t4 is worth that much. actually math shows old stat is better vs t4 3+. ...
So much for wrecking target. Ps vs sob and anything with 4+ or less old is better
Maybe check math in future well still end result is damage is junk either way as this isn't improvement but side step so still just 5 to land to unguarded objective if you really want to use them
The issue being you had to get them within 12' range for the double shots, now you don't. Ap 0 to Ap -2 is also a fairly large difference as well. I haven't run the math yet myself, and while I believe that the old version might edge out better vs T4 with doubletap, The new Weapon is going to be better against T5 and with Gravis armour being more popular, is a pretty big deal.
Additionally, you now have options. You can set them up in a traditional sniper role, or deepstrike them against their new target, but farther away so you don't risk them immediately getting blown up after they show up.
All of those factors to me makes the new weapon substantially better.
tneva82 wrote: Hmmm true. Though 1 less shot often so firepower still reduced.
Not really. The moment you wanted to shoot something more, you're in range to die or weren't able to shoot twice. Mortal Wound output will be less but overall stronger basic attacks will prevail. I'll take the current profile over the last one any day.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Though D1 is kinda lame but whatever.
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
At BS2 they are firing at their old hit rate anyway if they deepstrike. They also got a T bonus, and the weapon is much better.
They got buffed for sure, I'm curious to see their special rules.
Much better? 2 shots better than 1. Rarely you don't have target nearby anyway. Mortal output halved, less shots means also less rolls to be made. You get s5 vs t4 bonus vs 3+ for half the mortals.
2.6 versus 2.2 -- if they move the numbers are about equal. But all this required they be w/i 12" of the target and now they can be 36", which is preferable. Their special rule might change as a result, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway on Deathmarks - I think the unit is probably better now, but its essentially going "yeah, always was a crap sniper, still going to be a crap sniper, now really a positional piece combining deep strike, intercept and a very long range".
Mathhammer is kind of meh - for claiming objectives (and tickling a wounded character/unit) it could be quite useful.
Am I reading that right that Guard effectively get a fairly significant free buff when the Marine codex comes out? They get the weapons improvement but their points won't be adjusted until their codex comes up.
It marched my expectations but still left me wanting sadly. Nice that all instance of same name weaponry gets updated day 1, shame about everyone else needing a dex. Likewise waiting on a new codex for the extra wounds for chaos seems a bit of a cop out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually it only mentions fully fledged astartes so 1 wound scouts?
Some real questions there, 30" boltguns for classic marines?
Largely flattening out the differences with primaris is a positive, given that their rules had been reflecting a much larger difference than their lore described. (Initially, if you assumed a naked marine and a naked primaris, then 2 wounds and 2 attacks literally doubled the impact one would have. The lack of double the firepower and existence of multi-wounding weapons were the only counter-factors.)
My one caveat is that if tacs are two wound, so should be many traditionally "marine equivalent" units other armies have. Using the other army they're boxed with as an example, they seem to be continuing a trend of devaluing Necron Warriors into zombie hordes so if they're relatively cheap 1 wound models that's one thing, but Immortals should absolutely be two wound if marines are. They used to be T5!
Yeah,so positive it makes fluff into nonsense.
"Hey Guiliman, I spent 10000 years improving Space Marines and their equipment! War is changed forever!"
"Yeah? Tell me the groundbreaking advances!"
"Ermmm... Primaris are huge, but no more tough than before. They also strike a bit faster. And their bigger and better guns are actually the same. But pierce armour a bit better.
Why do you say nothing, Guiliman? Are you overwhelmed?"
Honestly, if the only answer to that question is "They're much easier to mass produce and much less affected by corruptions of the geneseed" it would have been and incredibly game changing advance, without needing any kind of statline modification.
DanielFM wrote: Yeah,so positive it makes fluff into nonsense.
"Hey Guiliman, I spent 10000 years improving Space Marines and their equipment! War is changed forever!"
"Yeah? Tell me the groundbreaking advances!"
"Ermmm... Primaris are huge, but no more tough than before. They also strike a bit faster. And their bigger and better guns are actually the same. But pierce armour a bit better.
Why do you say nothing, Guiliman? Are you overwhelmed?"
Meh, the rules always have to be heavily abstracted, and the reality is that a Primaris Marine is good but certainly a regular marine is much closer to a Primaris Marine than they are a regular human, and the rules didn't really used to reflect that. Now they do.
These new rules and points will come into effect officially, as new codexes are released. The first two codexes will be with us in October (along with loads of new miniatures) and we’ll be taking a closer look at them and what to expect from next month.
so while the beloved Deathguard of the Grandfather will get the useful extra wound (along with all those foolish followers of the other less helpful chaos gods) eventually there's going to be a considerable chunk of time where Loyalist marines will just be even better (as opposed to just better)
The Phazer wrote: Am I reading that right that Guard effectively get a fairly significant free buff when the Marine codex comes out? They get the weapons improvement but their points won't be adjusted until their codex comes up.
Meanwhile Xenos armies kinda get hosed tbh.
I think it's brash to assume the updated weapons profiles weren't already considered in the new points update. If they knew they were rolling out changes game-wide on profiles, might as well bake them in early.
Many of the increases (Heavy Bolters, Multi-Meltas) only make sense when you factor in the updated profiles. So you're already paying for them, you just won't get updates to your units until later.
If chaos space marines come in at 17 points each, all of a sudden they become a very viable, if not the best choice for troop squads with 2 wounds, especially with those new reaper chaincannon's
Bluflash wrote: I think it's brash to assume the updated weapons profiles weren't already considered in the new points update. If they knew they were rolling out changes game-wide on profiles, might as well bake them in early.
Many of the increases (Heavy Bolters, Multi-Meltas) only make sense when you factor in the updated profiles. So you're already paying for them, you just won't get updates to your units until later.
Xenos still get hosed.
I might have assumed that, but Guard didn't exactly seem overcosted compared to Marines before and Marines are going up.
Some of the CA points costings seem to make even less sense now than they did before.
tneva82 wrote: Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at
At BS2 they are firing at their old hit rate anyway if they deepstrike. They also got a T bonus, and the weapon is much better.
They got buffed for sure, I'm curious to see their special rules.
Much better? 2 shots better than 1. Rarely you don't have target nearby anyway. Mortal output halved, less shots means also less rolls to be made. You get s5 vs t4 bonus vs 3+ for half the mortals.
The 2 shots were absolute garbage. Its a total red heron argument. Now when they intercept they will actually wreck the unit they were interrupting. That strength 5 and -2 is a very big deal and honestly I am glad they are 36" range now. You can always just deploy them near a lord and enjoy sniping for once with rerolls to wound to boot.
You realize right vs 3+ double shot is equal to -2? That -2 is better only vs 2+ armour? So s5 vs s4 vs half the mortals. I doubt s5 vs t4 is worth that much. actually math shows old stat is better vs t4 3+. ...
So much for wrecking target. Ps vs sob and anything with 4+ or less old is better
Maybe check math in future well still end result is damage is junk either way as this isn't improvement but side step so still just 5 to land to unguarded objective if you really want to use them
I don't know if Smug is really the best attitude when your argument hinges on dismissing a large number of advantage for nine one hundredths of a wound.
Vs Marine
Old with rapid fire: 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 2 = 2/9 = .22 + .33 MW = .55
New heavy: 2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 = 8/27 = .29 + .17 MW = .46
That also has two caveats that render it moot, only within 12", and only on a deepstrike turn. For instance, with a 36" range, the new death marks could start on the board, so they would get an extra turn of shooting in addition to better shooting overall. Deep striking within 12" is suicide against most forces, so the old deathmarks would give up kill points and only get to shoot once. The new deathmarks can drop an LT a round (5/6 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 10 = 3.7 + 1.67 MW = 5.37), from the safety of cover, from the first round on. I mean there isn't even a comparison here right, the old deathmarks would almost never make their points, the new ones can do it quite a bit easier since they are tougher, can attack from relative safety, and when not moving have a superior weapon profile.
The Phazer wrote: Am I reading that right that Guard effectively get a fairly significant free buff when the Marine codex comes out? They get the weapons improvement but their points won't be adjusted until their codex comes up.
Meanwhile Xenos armies kinda get hosed tbh.
I think it's brash to assume the updated weapons profiles weren't already considered in the new points update. If they knew they were rolling out changes game-wide on profiles, might as well bake them in early.
Many of the increases (Heavy Bolters, Multi-Meltas) only make sense when you factor in the updated profiles. So you're already paying for them, you just won't get updates to your units until later.
Xenos still get hosed.
As a Tau player I am quite happy with the melta changes, because we will be seeing a buff to our fusion blaster no doubt. Just gotta wait for the codex.
As a Tau player I am quite happy with the melta changes, because we will be seeing a buff to our fusion blaster no doubt. Just gotta wait for the codex.
Yeah, well. There might be a buff. It may not be _that_ buff.
Much the same way that Tau plasma is fundamentally different from Imperial plasma.
I can already see the conversation-
'Well, tau players took fusion more often than Imperial players took meltas, so we obviously don't have to buff it the same way. Besides its _fusion_ and not _melta_, and we want our weapons to be distinct, right fellow hypothetical writers?'
'Vague approval noises'
As a Tau player I am quite happy with the melta changes, because we will be seeing a buff to our fusion blaster no doubt. Just gotta wait for the codex.
Yeah, well. There might be a buff. It may not be _that_ buff.
Much the same way that Tau plasma is fundamentally different from Imperial plasma.
I can already see the conversation-
'Well, tau players took fusion more often than Imperial players took meltas, so we obviously don't have to buff it the same way. Besides its _fusion_ and not _melta_, and we want our weapons to be distinct, right fellow hypothetical writers?'
'Vague approval noises'
I thought Tau was going to get a plasma rifle update for 8th, since they are already going to be buffing the fusion blaster for 9th ( they kinda have to at this point ) maybe they will finally give us an overcharge profile for the plasma rifle.
DanielFM wrote: So being Primaris no longer means anything. Thanks GW
It means +1 attack and a better gun
Yeah, a largely useless attack for non-combat units. And an measly extra point of AP. Woah, breathtaking. You lose access to drop pods and special weapons as a trade-off for the awesome upgrade.
Plus, I mean in terms of background-to-tabletop representation. A big bioengineering improvement to be taller, bulkier, stronger and have special organs to be tougher grants +1 attack in-game. Immersion breaking. Dumb. A kick in the nuts.
I can no longer field Intercessors knowing the squat version of themselves in front of them are physically equals to them.
They've realised that they have an absolutely huge backlog of no longer wanted units and have decided to give people a reason to buy them.
Honestly though, as long as point costs are adequate, marines being 2 wounds has always been an ultimate no brainer tbh.
Are we going to see Heavy bolter devastator squads, as an anti marine unit?
Additionally, I wonder if onslaught gatling cannons will stay at D1? I have a inkling they may do.
Considering the history of the weapon in the past, I find assault cannons disappointing to remain at D1... Those things use to do some serious damage back in the day (2nd edition). I may be miss remembering the terminator sheet though.
Also, and this genuinely could be down the pipeline... An imperial civil war with old marines vs primaris, another reason to buy the old marine units.
As a Tau player I am quite happy with the melta changes, because we will be seeing a buff to our fusion blaster no doubt. Just gotta wait for the codex.
Yeah, well. There might be a buff. It may not be _that_ buff.
Much the same way that Tau plasma is fundamentally different from Imperial plasma.
I can already see the conversation-
'Well, tau players took fusion more often than Imperial players took meltas, so we obviously don't have to buff it the same way. Besides its _fusion_ and not _melta_, and we want our weapons to be distinct, right fellow hypothetical writers?'
'Vague approval noises'
I thought Tau was going to get a plasma rifle update for 8th, since they are already going to be buffing the fusion blaster for 9th ( they kinda have to at this point ) maybe they will finally give us an overcharge profile for the plasma rifle.
No? Tau intentionally don't allow their plasma weapons to overcharge. Its a deliberate contrast point to Imperials, who don't value the lives of their people.
Its weirdly unfluffy that overcharge crept into other weapons.
Don't get locked into the idea that they 'have to' buff any specific thing. They may decide that burst cannons need more range or AP or whatever.
A lot of the upcoming changes will likely depend more on how GW feels an army 'should' play, not what buffs players feel are 'needed'
As a Tau player I am quite happy with the melta changes, because we will be seeing a buff to our fusion blaster no doubt. Just gotta wait for the codex.
Yeah, well. There might be a buff. It may not be _that_ buff.
Much the same way that Tau plasma is fundamentally different from Imperial plasma.
I can already see the conversation-
'Well, tau players took fusion more often than Imperial players took meltas, so we obviously don't have to buff it the same way. Besides its _fusion_ and not _melta_, and we want our weapons to be distinct, right fellow hypothetical writers?'
'Vague approval noises'
I thought Tau was going to get a plasma rifle update for 8th, since they are already going to be buffing the fusion blaster for 9th ( they kinda have to at this point ) maybe they will finally give us an overcharge profile for the plasma rifle.
No? Tau intentionally don't allow their plasma weapons to overcharge. Its a deliberate contrast point to Imperials, who don't value the lives of their people.
Its weirdly unfluffy that overcharge crept into other weapons.
Don't get locked into the idea that they 'have to' buff any specific thing. They may decide that burst cannons need more range or AP or whatever.
A lot of the upcoming changes will likely depend more on how GW feels an army 'should' play, not what buffs players feel are 'needed'
The problem with Tau plasma vs Imperial plasma is that in past editions Tau was S6 and Imperial S7 because imperial would get hot on 1's and Tau was safer. With 8th, Imperial plasma at S7 became "safe" and it gained a new overcharged profile with +1S and +1D, but Tau plasma remained the same. And now Ibris will come and tell me how poor imperials have had it agaisnt Tau but in fairness Tau plasma should be S7.
As a Tau player I am quite happy with the melta changes, because we will be seeing a buff to our fusion blaster no doubt. Just gotta wait for the codex.
Yeah, well. There might be a buff. It may not be _that_ buff.
Much the same way that Tau plasma is fundamentally different from Imperial plasma.
I can already see the conversation-
'Well, tau players took fusion more often than Imperial players took meltas, so we obviously don't have to buff it the same way. Besides its _fusion_ and not _melta_, and we want our weapons to be distinct, right fellow hypothetical writers?'
'Vague approval noises'
An additional wrinkle to that: in spanish a "melta gun" is a "rifle de fusión", so this will be fun!
Assuming vehicles are still locked to either primaris or standard, it can be worth the 2pts if you want impulsors for example.
If I genuinely had to guess, I think there may be a slight chance of special doctrines if you have an army full of non primaris, and primaris... Which again would be cool to be honest, I'm all game for distinction between each, and also not mixing both on the table top because it looks weird.
No? Tau intentionally don't allow their plasma weapons to overcharge. Its a deliberate contrast point to Imperials, who don't value the lives of their people.
Its weirdly unfluffy that overcharge crept into other weapons.
Well, I remember they tested a new weapon (Rail Rifle? - I guess from the video game) and Fire Warriors died using it - and when their leaders got angry, they were appeased by the Etereals because it was all for the Greater Good. Humm....
Latro_ wrote: Yea I'd pay the 20pts for the extra attacks and minus 1. Guess the question is does that 20pts when spent on say a spec and heavy weapon balance it
Those 20 points buy a Heavy bolter and a Combi plasma.
Only those make 2,71 wounds on average Vs Intercessors. 5 Bolt Rifles do 1,66 against the same target.
Isn't that enough to see the Tacticals are way better?
No? Tau intentionally don't allow their plasma weapons to overcharge. Its a deliberate contrast point to Imperials, who don't value the lives of their people.
Its weirdly unfluffy that overcharge crept into other weapons.
Well, I remember they tested a new weapon (Rail Rifle? - I guess from the video game) and Fire Warriors died using it - and when their leaders got angry, they were appeased by the Etereals because it was all for the Greater Good. Humm....
That was awhile ago in both game universe and real life time. I think the background has it that the weapon has been further refined and there is no longer any risk, and maybe GW has decided that weapons that pose risk to the user don't fit in with the Tau army design paradigm after all.
I wish I still had the White Dwarf for it, but I think it was that there was a specific upgrade that came with the Rail Rifle and the gun being Rapid Fire.
DanielFM wrote: So being Primaris no longer means anything. Thanks GW
It means +1 attack and a better gun
Yeah, a largely useless attack for non-combat units. And an measly extra point of AP. Woah, breathtaking. You lose access to drop pods and special weapons as a trade-off for the awesome upgrade.
Plus, I mean in terms of background-to-tabletop representation. A big bioengineering improvement to be taller, bulkier, stronger and have special organs to be tougher grants +1 attack in-game. Immersion breaking. Dumb. A kick in the nuts.
I can no longer field Intercessors knowing the squat version of themselves in front of them are physically equals to them.
From the games I've played so far, AP-1 matters way more than AP-3. You guys are crying about nothing at all, play the old marines, or play the new marines, or mix them for even more fun. JFC this hobbies supporters can never be made happy.
Wasn't expecting them to heft Oldmarines up to 2 wounds.
It does bring in some fluff questions. If there's not that much difference, why the big deal about "Crossing the Rubicon Primaris". Why would you bother? Sure, Marneus did it for political reasons and Mephiston was going a bit bonkers, but it's it really worthwhile for everyone else?
(I know the real reason is so that in 10th edition we get Primaris tactical squads, the new look marines are fleshed out, everyone pretends that firstborn don't exist and maybe, if we're lucky, they go for plastic Mk6 and Mk7 for heresy)
All in all I like the levelling off. Wonder if it'll transfer to Kill Team.
DanielFM wrote: So being Primaris no longer means anything. Thanks GW
Heheheh. You see, this is phase 2. Now all Marines will be roughly the same. This blurs the line between "First Born" and "Primaris". For an entire edition Marines of all types will be on even footing.
Then, maybe in a year, maybe even 2 years, they can do a "rationalisation" of the Marine product line. "There are just so many kits, we thought it was time to retire some of the older ones..." and so on - justify it as saying they don't want to confuse new players - and the mini-Marines go out of production, leaving just Primaris Marines, which by now are just "regular" Marines, as all Marines have the same basic statline.
DanielFM wrote: So being Primaris no longer means anything. Thanks GW
Heheheh. You see, this is phase 2. Now all Marines will be roughly the same. This blurs the line between "First Born" and "Primaris". For an entire edition Marines of all types will be on even footing.
Then, maybe in a year, maybe even 2 years, they can do a "rationalisation" of the Marine product line. "There are just so many kits, we thought it was time to retire some of the older ones..." and so on - justify it as saying they don't want to confuse new players - and the mini-Marines go out of production, leaving just Primaris Marines, which by now are just "regular" Marines, as all Marines have the same basic statline.
Good the codex is way too big and needs to be cut down anyways
DanielFM wrote: So being Primaris no longer means anything. Thanks GW
It means +1 attack and a better gun
Yeah, a largely useless attack for non-combat units. And an measly extra point of AP. Woah, breathtaking. You lose access to drop pods and special weapons as a trade-off for the awesome upgrade.
Plus, I mean in terms of background-to-tabletop representation. A big bioengineering improvement to be taller, bulkier, stronger and have special organs to be tougher grants +1 attack in-game. Immersion breaking. Dumb. A kick in the nuts.
I can no longer field Intercessors knowing the squat version of themselves in front of them are physically equals to them.
From the games I've played so far, AP-1 matters way more than AP-3. You guys are crying about nothing at all, play the old marines, or play the new marines, or mix them for even more fun. JFC this hobbies supporters can never be made happy.
The AP means nothing. Check the numbers above. With the saved points, a heavy bolter and a Combi plasma do more damage alone than 5 Bolt Rifles.
Graphite wrote:Ooooh Kay.
Wasn't expecting them to heft Oldmarines up to 2 wounds.
It does bring in some fluff questions. If there's not that much difference, why the big deal about "Crossing the Rubicon Primaris". Why would you bother? Sure, Marneus did it for political reasons and Mephiston was going a bit bonkers, but it's it really worthwhile for everyone else?
This. If in game stats mean anything, they are practically the same. So much hype and effort from Cawl to get Marines +1 attack
DanielFM wrote: So being Primaris no longer means anything. Thanks GW
It means +1 attack and a better gun
apparently it looks like the boltgun may range out to 30 inches. if thats the case intercessors are going to dissapper from space wolf armies
Probably-18-point grey hunters (and blood claws) are wondering 'Are they really?'
let's compare a grey hunter at 18 points to an intercessor at 20 points for a moment?
ok, so the grey hunter has a 30 range AP - Rpid fire 1 boltgun with an AP -1 chainsword for 2 S4 AP -1 attacks
intercessor has (with a standard bolt rifle) 30 inch AP -1 rapidfire 1 with 2 AP - S4 attacks
Argive wrote: Well... The codex creep is going to be insane this time around..
So they valued an extra wound at 3 pts for a T4 3+ model with stacks and stacks of rules? Fantastic...
Who knows what other changes they have in store for the Space Marines in the new Codex. A convenient thing about giving models Angels of Death rather than all the rules it encompasses is that they can overhaul the rules that Angels of Death encompasses without needing to change data sheets.
Could just be wishful thinking on my part, but time will tell.
So, now you can just... use whatever Space Marines you want and equip them with whatever weapons you like- Devastators, tacticals, assault, whatever. As of right now, all Space Marines are valid and you can use your old ones, or the new ones.
...and yet, somehow people are still crying about this.
As of right now Space Marine kitbashing just got on a whole new level and the very people that use them are upset over it.
Shine on, shiny diamonds.
(Also: I told you this was gonna happen. You can go back and have a look, if you like).
Adeptus Doritos wrote: So, now you can just... use whatever Space Marines you want and equip them with whatever weapons you like- Devastators, tacticals, assault, whatever. As of right now, all Space Marines are valid and you can use your old ones, or the new ones.
...and yet, somehow people are still crying about this.
As of right now Space Marine kitbashing just got on a whole new level and the very people that use them are upset over it.
Shine on, shiny diamonds.
(Also: I told you this was gonna happen. You can go back and have a look, if you like).
I’m mad keen. I’m making Primaris Vanguard Veterans and Death Company with Jump Packs. Delicious!
Crazyterran wrote: Where are people seeing that Boltguns are 30" range now? I didnt see it in the article.
Command Squad instruction booklet has a rules section, and shows 30" for the range of the Bolter.
Could it be a typo? Sure. The new Redemptor Fist rules means it heals your opponents rather than damages, and that's probably a typo, but it might be true so we might really have 30" bolters.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: So, now you can just... use whatever Space Marines you want and equip them with whatever weapons you like- Devastators, tacticals, assault, whatever. As of right now, all Space Marines are valid and you can use your old ones, or the new ones.
...and yet, somehow people are still crying about this.
As of right now Space Marine kitbashing just got on a whole new level and the very people that use them are upset over it.
Shine on, shiny diamonds.
(Also: I told you this was gonna happen. You can go back and have a look, if you like).
That's a bastardization of Primaris. Call me a purist if you want. They won't have the keyword. They won't have the synergies. They will be glorified proxies. Many people is happy with that, I'm not.
I think the rules team has been watching too much Astartes recently.
This is bonkers level of sweeping changes. Doesn't this invalidate the Munitorium manual of the new Chapter Approved - which came out just last week - on top of everything else?
DanielFM wrote: That's a bastardization of Primaris. Call me a purist if you want. They won't have the keyword. They won't have the synergies. They will be glorified proxies. Many people is happy with that, I'm not.
Good.
Stormonu wrote: This is bonkers level of sweeping changes. Doesn't this invalidate the Munitorium manual of the new Chapter Approved - which came out just last week - on top of everything else?
Yeah, that's... kind of annoying, actually. But they damned sure did make sure you know about that new App (that costs a monthly fee).
Anyway, as far as changes go, this is what I see:
-Space Marines get another wound.
-All weapons across the board are getting buffed
I think you may have pointed out the only real problem- the fact that I wasted money on the field manual. It'd be nice if the area was big enough to write the updated points next to it.
Togusa wrote: I wish I could find the comment I made a month ago about Deathmarks, in which I got dog piled for suggesting they will get buffed.
Well T4 wasn't exactly their biggest issue and new gun is really a sidestep. Damage output it loses vs old gun vs T4 3+, T8 3+ and obviously anything with T3 or 4+ or less winning vs 2+ armour(by 0.1 damage more for 10 deathmarks...). So it's more of sidestep changing unit role from deep striking and appearing to objective or near other deep strikers to sit at backfield but damage output is still bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: I think the rules team has been watching too much Astartes recently.
This is bonkers level of sweeping changes. Doesn't this invalidate the Munitorium manual of the new Chapter Approved - which came out just last week - on top of everything else?
For space marines yes. For rest of imperium for weapons maybe if they change point costs as well. For rest no.
And the CA points were always going to be overwritten by new codexes. You can't have all points only in CA and not in codexes after CA. If you do that the point costs in CA will be under/over costed until codex comes.
Stormonu wrote: This is bonkers level of sweeping changes. Doesn't this invalidate the Munitorium manual of the new Chapter Approved - which came out just last week - on top of everything else?
Naturally. This is why so many of us keep saying: Don't buy GW's printed material.
Hmm, so Storm Bolter still has got 24" range. Maybe Firstborn aren't really getting +6" to range on their Bolters, and that weapon we've seen is some special variant?
Or maybe GW are introducing range changes between different variants and Storm Bolters simply don't get the extension
Togusa wrote: I wish I could find the comment I made a month ago about Deathmarks, in which I got dog piled for suggesting they will get buffed.
Well T4 wasn't exactly their biggest issue and new gun is really a sidestep. Damage output it loses vs old gun vs T4 3+, T8 3+ and obviously anything with T3 or 4+ or less winning vs 2+ armour(by 0.1 damage more for 10 deathmarks...). So it's more of sidestep changing unit role from deep striking and appearing to objective or near other deep strikers to sit at backfield but damage output is still bad.
10 Deathmarks kill a Primaris character on average, I'd hardly call that bad output. In fact outside RG eliminators in tactical doctrine, I can't think of any better snipers.
And the switch in role makes them more viable as they can actually get more than one turn of shooting off. Sit them in cover on your back field and they're a pain to shift. Assuming they'll get a pts bump, but at the moment, for 16ppm, their a steal.
SarisKhan wrote: Hmm, so Storm Bolter still has got 24" range. Maybe Firstborn aren't really getting +6" to range on their Bolters, and that weapon we've seen is some special variant?
Or maybe GW are introducing range changes between different variants and Storm Bolters simply don't get the extension
could be. I seem to recall stormbolters having inferior range to bolters in some other sources (the space marine video game comes to mind) I mean it makes sense. you're literally doubling the barrels and thus the recoil. a stormbolter isn't going to be quite as reliable a marksmans weapon.
that said the heavy flamer also only has a range of 8, so I'm wondering if there are just errors on this sheet
I like seeing the change to wounds on Marines. If they now fix transport segregation we're well on the way to leaving this Primaris nonsense behind and just have Marines again.
Stormonu wrote: This is bonkers level of sweeping changes. Doesn't this invalidate the Munitorium manual of the new Chapter Approved - which came out just last week - on top of everything else?
Naturally. This is why so many of us keep saying: Don't buy GW's printed material.
I'd go a little further than that: don't pay for errata.
Geifer wrote: I like seeing the change to wounds on Marines. If they now fix transport segregation we're well on the way to leaving this Primaris nonsense behind and just have Marines again.
Give Primaris access to Drop Pods and I won't care about anything else. Ever
Geifer wrote: I like seeing the change to wounds on Marines. If they now fix transport segregation we're well on the way to leaving this Primaris nonsense behind and just have Marines again.
Stormonu wrote: This is bonkers level of sweeping changes. Doesn't this invalidate the Munitorium manual of the new Chapter Approved - which came out just last week - on top of everything else?
Naturally. This is why so many of us keep saying: Don't buy GW's printed material.
I'd go a little further than that: don't pay for errata.
Did people really buy the bundle for the points manual? Personally I just saw that tacked on to the tournament pack, which is almost a necessity since it has the rules in a far less bulky package then the monstrous (but glorious) rule book.
Geifer wrote: I like seeing the change to wounds on Marines. If they now fix transport segregation we're well on the way to leaving this Primaris nonsense behind and just have Marines again.
Stormonu wrote: This is bonkers level of sweeping changes. Doesn't this invalidate the Munitorium manual of the new Chapter Approved - which came out just last week - on top of everything else?
Naturally. This is why so many of us keep saying: Don't buy GW's printed material.
I'd go a little further than that: don't pay for errata.
Did people really buy the bundle for the points manual? Personally I just saw that tacked on to the tournament pack, which is almost a necessity since it has the rules in a far less bulky package then the monstrous (but glorious) rule book.
I'm sure some did. It's not like your getting a heap of pages for free so I would have been very annoyed for it to be binnable less than a week after I got it.
Geifer wrote: I like seeing the change to wounds on Marines. If they now fix transport segregation we're well on the way to leaving this Primaris nonsense behind and just have Marines again.
Stormonu wrote: This is bonkers level of sweeping changes. Doesn't this invalidate the Munitorium manual of the new Chapter Approved - which came out just last week - on top of everything else?
Naturally. This is why so many of us keep saying: Don't buy GW's printed material.
I'd go a little further than that: don't pay for errata.
Did people really buy the bundle for the points manual? Personally I just saw that tacked on to the tournament pack, which is almost a necessity since it has the rules in a far less bulky package then the monstrous (but glorious) rule book.
Depends on the person, I guess?
Chapter Approved thus far has been a way to monetize changing points costs and secure GW an annual purchase from active players. The rest of the books are filler designed to suggest further value beyond mere pouts that is of more or less useful based on the interests of the individual player, but I think it's no secret that Chapter Approved primarily sells because it provides current points costs, and that this is fully GW's intention.
Chapter Approved 2020 may well be an outstanding example in that regard and a good purchase if enough people find the tournament pack useful and desirable. If this speaks to enough people it does a good job that at least part of the money for the book goes into buying and errata.
bullyboy wrote: Did people really buy the bundle for the points manual? Personally I just saw that tacked on to the tournament pack, which is almost a necessity since it has the rules in a far less bulky package then the monstrous (but glorious) rule book.
I did. I got the core book too, and I don't really have any issue lugging that around, though I will admit the smaller version is going to be useful.
The main reason for getting the points manual is that I have a lot of smaller forces for armies that I don't expect to all get full Codexes any time soon (Eldar, Daemons, Chaos Marines). On those grounds though, I won't be getting Chapter Approved for incremental point changes in the meantime... nor have I ever bought Chapter Approved before, for the same reason.
To put it another way - one big sweep of changes in one book for a new edition, or a new Codex, I'm fine with. Incremental annual updates, I take umbrage to.
They haven't done any really big updates like what we're seeing via Chapter Approved since they brought it back. The whole point of CA has been missions, points, and errata.
Personally speaking? I saw no reason to buy CA this go-round. New codices are coming and it's not like tournaments are being played stateside. We don't even really have in-store browsing as a thing at the hobby shops where I live.
Is there a round up of what info we have received yet anywhere?
Don’t want to be trawling to see new stats etc.
Particularly as this got consolidated with marine info, and I just wanted to find Necron updates, so now it’s even harder with 18 pages of both.
I'm sure some did. It's not like your getting a heap of pages for free so I would have been very annoyed for it to be binnable less than a week after I got it.
Uhm. Marines sure are all in 40k if entire point book gets invalidated because marines and necrons get codex.
IG points are obviously irrelevant. SOB points? Who cares. Orks? Who play them. Entire book is binnable because marines and necrons get codex.
Or were people expecting new codexes not have points? Not have point changes?
bullyboy wrote: Did people really buy the bundle for the points manual? Personally I just saw that tacked on to the tournament pack, which is almost a necessity since it has the rules in a far less bulky package then the monstrous (but glorious) rule book.
I did. I got the core book too, and I don't really have any issue lugging that around, though I will admit the smaller version is going to be useful.
The main reason for getting the points manual is that I have a lot of smaller forces for armies that I don't expect to all get full Codexes any time soon (Eldar, Daemons, Chaos Marines). On those grounds though, I won't be getting Chapter Approved for incremental point changes in the meantime... nor have I ever bought Chapter Approved before, for the same reason.
To put it another way - one big sweep of changes in one book for a new edition, or a new Codex, I'm fine with. Incremental annual updates, I take umbrage to.
So you don't plan to play in tournaments then? If points is all for you then that means that the tournament pack is meaningless for you? Without it no tournaments for you.
Danny76 wrote: Is there a round up of what info we have received yet anywhere?
Don’t want to be trawling to see new stats etc.
Particularly as this got consolidated with marine info, and I just wanted to find Necron updates, so now it’s even harder with 18 pages of both.
Sasori has a Necron General Discussion Thread going down in 40k General. If you click 'Filter Thread' under their name, you should be able to find the stuff easier as I believe they reposted it there.
tneva82 wrote: So you don't plan to play in tournaments then? If points is all for you then that means that the tournament pack is meaningless for you? Without it no tournaments for you.
That's correct, I don't plan to play in any tournaments - just friendly local matches, MAYBE a local tourney if one came up, but it's been a while.
That doesn't make the tournament pack totally meaningless - the missions are still usable in friendlier games too - but I wouldn't have gotten a copy if it was sold separately.
tneva82 wrote: So you don't plan to play in tournaments then? If points is all for you then that means that the tournament pack is meaningless for you? Without it no tournaments for you.
That's correct, I don't plan to play in any tournaments - just friendly local matches, MAYBE a local tourney if one came up, but it's been a while.
That doesn't make the tournament pack totally meaningless - the missions are still usable in friendlier games too - but I wouldn't have gotten a copy if it was sold separately.
Its like 30 extra missions for the game plus a mini rule book, dont see how its a bad thing
Stormonu wrote: This is bonkers level of sweeping changes. Doesn't this invalidate the Munitorium manual of the new Chapter Approved - which came out just last week - on top of everything else?
Naturally. This is why so many of us keep saying: Don't buy GW's printed material.
I'm sure some did. It's not like your getting a heap of pages for free so I would have been very annoyed for it to be binnable less than a week after I got it.
Uhm. Marines sure are all in 40k if entire point book gets invalidated because marines and necrons get codex.
IG points are obviously irrelevant. SOB points? Who cares. Orks? Who play them. Entire book is binnable because marines and necrons get codex.
Or were people expecting new codexes not have points? Not have point changes?
you knew marines where getting a codex in october before you purchased the book.
I'm sure some did. It's not like your getting a heap of pages for free so I would have been very annoyed for it to be binnable less than a week after I got it.
Uhm. Marines sure are all in 40k if entire point book gets invalidated because marines and necrons get codex.
IG points are obviously irrelevant. SOB points? Who cares. Orks? Who play them. Entire book is binnable because marines and necrons get codex.
Or were people expecting new codexes not have points? Not have point changes?
you knew marines where getting a codex in october before you purchased the book.
I think that's kinda tneva82's point - there was no way that the content within the MFM would remain static, even ignoring errata, until the next CA came out. Sections of it were always going to be overwritten as new codexes (or whatever the right plural is) were released. I even think the October SM/Necron releases were confirmed before CA hit the streets.
Trying to claim the whole thing has been invalidated by partial statline previews, when GW has specifically said nowt changes until a book drops, reminds me very much of a key phrase from one of the best characters in cinema:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Just regarding the 30" range boltgun on the command squad data sheet. The extra range could be to represent a relic boltgun, which the command sprue does come with.
Snrub wrote: Just regarding the 30" range boltgun on the command squad data sheet. The extra range could be to represent a relic boltgun, which the command sprue does come with.
I really hope that this is the case. They didn't have any sort of special bolters before though.
I'm sure some did. It's not like your getting a heap of pages for free so I would have been very annoyed for it to be binnable less than a week after I got it.
Uhm. Marines sure are all in 40k if entire point book gets invalidated because marines and necrons get codex.
IG points are obviously irrelevant. SOB points? Who cares. Orks? Who play them. Entire book is binnable because marines and necrons get codex.
Or were people expecting new codexes not have points? Not have point changes?
you knew marines where getting a codex in october before you purchased the book.
I think that's kinda tneva82's point - there was no way that the content within the MFM would remain static, even ignoring errata, until the next CA came out. Sections of it were always going to be overwritten as new codexes (or whatever the right plural is) were released. I even think the October SM/Necron releases were confirmed before CA hit the streets.
Trying to claim the whole thing has been invalidated by partial statline previews, when GW has specifically said nowt changes until a book drops, reminds me very much of a key phrase from one of the best characters in cinema:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
This. GW has basically following options:
a) make every point in CA based on current abilities. When codex drop point costs remain so many units would become underpriced(if unit gets buffs) or overpriced(if they get nerfed).
b) make every point in CA based on upcoming codexes. Then until codex drops above issue reversed.
c) do it as they do now. Have CA points based on current abilities(as flawed as they were pointed) and then put new point costs in codexes
d) release every single codex at once and while for gamers point of view this would be best GW isn't going to do especially as they want people to buy many of those so spreading them and thus spreading pull of income. One player might baulk at buying 4 armies at once. Spread over longer period? Not so few succumb to impulse buying...If they would release all at once how many impulse army starts would be cancelled as player things further during the period he needs to save money to be able to afford to buy it?
Snrub wrote: Just regarding the 30" range boltgun on the command squad data sheet. The extra range could be to represent a relic boltgun, which the command sprue does come with.
I really hope that this is the case. They didn't have any sort of special bolters before though.
/rampent speculation
They might be doing something with company vets and sternguard? Although the sternguard bolters had more then just the extra range on their statline. With Deathwatch being rolled into the main book, we might be a return of SIA to the SG?
Company Vets have been in an odd space since they fragmented the command squad. I would not be surprised to see some major changes to their entry.
Maybe, since they don’t seem to want to throw in a bunch os special rules with the summary sheets, it’s actually just an attempt to average out the effect of Special Issue ammo?
Voss wrote: They just spent most of a year demonstrating they can come up with much worse models; hence Psychic Snoozefest.
The codex is a cornerstone of their marketing strategy, it isn't going away.
I know it is their main bread and butter, if they just kept it all to one book it would be manageable but then there are expansions etc and you need 3-4 books for one army. I got so many old codexs which are really nice books but they are worthless once the new editions come out. And realistically they only need 10 pages or so to put out the special rules. I wish they would bring back the old soft cover codexes that used to be around $20 and then give the option for the hardcover for whatever they are now probably around $50?
Voss wrote: They just spent most of a year demonstrating they can come up with much worse models; hence Psychic Snoozefest.
The codex is a cornerstone of their marketing strategy, it isn't going away.
I know it is their main bread and butter, if they just kept it all to one book it would be manageable but then there are expansions etc and you need 3-4 books for one army. I got so many old codexs which are really nice books but they are worthless once the new editions come out. And realistically they only need 10 pages or so to put out the special rules. I wish they would bring back the old soft cover codexes that used to be around $20 and then give the option for the hardcover for whatever they are now probably around $50?
$40. Wait, is this just a price complaint?
If you're talking about needing 3-4 books that is definitively NOT a codex problem. That's a problem with 'campaign books' like vigilus or PA.
The general feedback the got on the cheap & thin softcover booklets in 3rd edition was that people _hated_ them for not having enough fluff, art and model pictures. So they plumped them back up.
Both the 2nd and 5th ed codexes were full of the fluff and extras that 3rd didn't have, though... and they were still paperbacks. Regardless, the issue here isn't really the difference between soft/hard cover but the increase of price over time, both with ordinary inflation (which ok is fair enough) and GW's love of price hikes.
I agree with the principle that putting core rules into campaign books and charging for annual updates like Chapter Approved are both too much, which is why I've never bought either. I fully expect to be able to play a specific faction with no more than one Codex, and any updates beyond that like points changes ought to be free.
The stuff from Psychic Awakening, per GW themselves, is going to be in the updated codices alongside of points and Crusade stuff. They've said "not all of the Psychic Awakening" stuff will make it into the codices but what that means nobody knows. More likely than not, it means that the missions and lore won't be in there.
And frankly if anyone didn't see the writing on the wall about a new edition or codices coming once Psychic Awakening dropped(or when GW themselves called it a stopgap measure for adding new content to existing codices)? That's on those folks. Nobody made you buy the books.
Kanluwen wrote: The stuff from Psychic Awakening, per GW themselves, is going to be in the updated codices alongside of points and Crusade stuff. They've said "not all of the Psychic Awakening" stuff will make it into the codices but what that means nobody knows. More likely than not, it means that the missions and lore won't be in there.
And frankly if anyone didn't see the writing on the wall about a new edition or codices coming once Psychic Awakening dropped(or when GW themselves called it a stopgap measure for adding new content to existing codices)? That's on those folks. Nobody made you buy the books.
That's not exactly a fair analysis for all but the Marine books. Nobody other than Necrons know for certain when their next Codex is actually going to drop - and not even Necrons knew that they'd be next when their Psychic Awakening book hit.
Not to mention, Psychic Awakening itself began last October - meaning that even if you somehow knew the exact dates of the next Codexes, the earlier factions will have been waiting at least a year (very likely, even longer) before they get their new book. You're either forcing them to buy into the stopgap, or watch as their old book slowly becomes less and less relevant on the table.
Lastly, that bit about seeing the writing on the wall is only of any use to people that have seen the cycle before. New players aren't going to know any better and would absolutely be suckered in (or, who knows? Quite possibly put off by) the staffer informing them that as well as the Codex, their army has another book with yet more cool rules and stuff they can use. They'd have no knowledge of the incoming new edition.
Besides... the argument that "we should have seen it coming" and "it'll all be in the new books" does nothing to convince me that putting core rules into an extra book and expecting people to buy it is a deplorable practice. I didn't fall for it but I'm still quite allowed to call it out as reprehensible.
Kanluwen wrote: "Core rules in campaign books" is laughable.
The stuff from Psychic Awakening, per GW themselves, is going to be in the updated codices alongside of points and Crusade stuff. They've said "not all of the Psychic Awakening" stuff will make it into the codices but what that means nobody knows. More likely than not, it means that the missions and lore won't be in there.
And frankly if anyone didn't see the writing on the wall about a new edition or codices coming once Psychic Awakening dropped(or when GW themselves called it a stopgap measure for adding new content to existing codices)? That's on those folks. Nobody made you buy the books.
some armies could go over a year without a new codex. PA at least makes that sting less
Wasn't there supposed to be some big reveal at the end of PA? Like, many of us were expecting to see a Primarch return or something, weren't we? Did it all just end in an incredibly flaccid manner? Or was 9th edition the big finale? I feel like I've missed something.
That's kind of a big deal. "Pariah" actually details it in far more depth than I care to here, but suffice to say that there was not just one "Pariah Nexus" and they basically made the sigil of Szarakhen when looked at on a map. Szeras basically lit off a giant "Szarakhen Signal" in the stars to summon the Silent King back.
Additionally, it's worth remembering that COVID really did screw things up. Lumineth are something like five months behind at this point(coming in September, the army book details points as being correct for April 2020) and the General's Handbook had points for the two Underworlds Warbands that just went up for preorder today(August 15).
Truthfully, we knew Szarekh was returning since the 5th edition codex (at least in the fluff anyway)
In c.744.M41, the Silent King enters the bounds of the galaxy once more. Having encountered the Tyranids in the intergalactic void, he recognizes the threat they pose to the Necrons' apotheosis - if the Tyranids devour all the life in the galaxy, the Necrons will never find living bodies to house their consciousnesses.
That was also repeated (in a slightly different form) in the 7th and 8th edition codexes.
Kanluwen wrote: "Core rules in campaign books" is laughable.
The stuff from Psychic Awakening, per GW themselves, is going to be in the updated codices alongside of points and Crusade stuff. They've said "not all of the Psychic Awakening" stuff will make it into the codices but what that means nobody knows. More likely than not, it means that the missions and lore won't be in there.
And frankly if anyone didn't see the writing on the wall about a new edition or codices coming once Psychic Awakening dropped(or when GW themselves called it a stopgap measure for adding new content to existing codices)? That's on those folks. Nobody made you buy the books.
some armies could go over a year without a new codex. PA at least makes that sting less
What in the world...?
Armies should go multiple years without a new codex. The desirable amount will vary by person, but I'd say 4-5 minimum.
PA stung a lot more, because it was terrible, repetitive filler strung out to avoid admitting to how temporary 8th edition was, even moreso than usual.
Ghaz wrote: Truthfully, we knew Szarekh was returning since the 5th edition codex (at least in the fluff anyway)
In c.744.M41, the Silent King enters the bounds of the galaxy once more. Having encountered the Tyranids in the intergalactic void, he recognizes the threat they pose to the Necrons' apotheosis - if the Tyranids devour all the life in the galaxy, the Necrons will never find living bodies to house their consciousnesses.
That was also repeated (in a slightly different form) in the 7th and 8th edition codexes.
we also know the Lion is sleeping in the rock and will wake up.. aaaaaaaaaany day now.
Voss wrote: They just spent most of a year demonstrating they can come up with much worse models; hence Psychic Snoozefest.
The codex is a cornerstone of their marketing strategy, it isn't going away.
I know it is their main bread and butter, if they just kept it all to one book it would be manageable but then there are expansions etc and you need 3-4 books for one army. I got so many old codexs which are really nice books but they are worthless once the new editions come out. And realistically they only need 10 pages or so to put out the special rules. I wish they would bring back the old soft cover codexes that used to be around $20 and then give the option for the hardcover for whatever they are now probably around $50?
40. And 20 in 2000 would be tad over 30 today so price isn't that bad actually. Less than 10 dollars for more fluff, hardcover etc isn't worst deal. Worse is supplement count and faster edition spin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: "Core rules in campaign books" is laughable.
The stuff from Psychic Awakening, per GW themselves, is going to be in the updated codices alongside of points and Crusade stuff. They've said "not all of the Psychic Awakening" stuff will make it into the codices but what that means nobody knows. More likely than not, it means that the missions and lore won't be in there.
And frankly if anyone didn't see the writing on the wall about a new edition or codices coming once Psychic Awakening dropped(or when GW themselves called it a stopgap measure for adding new content to existing codices)? That's on those folks. Nobody made you buy the books.
Well not all yes. Means you likely still want pa for stuff not in codex
Kanluwen wrote: "Core rules in campaign books" is laughable.
The stuff from Psychic Awakening, per GW themselves, is going to be in the updated codices alongside of points and Crusade stuff. They've said "not all of the Psychic Awakening" stuff will make it into the codices but what that means nobody knows. More likely than not, it means that the missions and lore won't be in there.
And frankly if anyone didn't see the writing on the wall about a new edition or codices coming once Psychic Awakening dropped(or when GW themselves called it a stopgap measure for adding new content to existing codices)? That's on those folks. Nobody made you buy the books.
some armies could go over a year without a new codex. PA at least makes that sting less
What in the world...?
Armies should go multiple years without a new codex. The desirable amount will vary by person, but I'd say 4-5 minimum.
PA stung a lot more, because it was terrible, repetitive filler strung out to avoid admitting to how temporary 8th edition was, even moreso than usual.
6th lasted 2years. Same 7th. 8th 3 years. Aos 1s' what 1 year? 8th was unusually long for recent gw. Expect 40k 10th 2022-2024.
So I was reading dawn of fire and there's an intreasting passage in it
Spoiler:
in a scene where primaris marines are being unveilded for the first time there is a passage that reads " "there was hold after hold of tanks, battlewalkers, aircraft and void fighters.... obviously intended for the adeptus Astartes" hinting at an upcoming primaris flier maybe?
BrianDavion wrote: So I was reading dawn of fire and there's an intreasting passage in it
Spoiler:
in a scene where primaris marines are being unveilded for the first time there is a passage that reads " "there was hold after hold of tanks, battlewalkers, aircraft and void fighters.... obviously intended for the adeptus Astartes" hinting at an upcoming primaris flier maybe?
Well
Spoiler:
I don’t think we even need a hint for a Primaris Flyer, that’s pretty much a given regardless.
Kanluwen wrote: "Core rules in campaign books" is laughable.
The stuff from Psychic Awakening, per GW themselves, is going to be in the updated codices alongside of points and Crusade stuff. They've said "not all of the Psychic Awakening" stuff will make it into the codices but what that means nobody knows. More likely than not, it means that the missions and lore won't be in there.
And frankly if anyone didn't see the writing on the wall about a new edition or codices coming once Psychic Awakening dropped(or when GW themselves called it a stopgap measure for adding new content to existing codices)? That's on those folks. Nobody made you buy the books.
some armies could go over a year without a new codex. PA at least makes that sting less
What in the world...?
Armies should go multiple years without a new codex. The desirable amount will vary by person, but I'd say 4-5 minimum.
PA stung a lot more, because it was terrible, repetitive filler strung out to avoid admitting to how temporary 8th edition was, even moreso than usual.
5 years getting stuck with the same fething book? Lol, nope. 3 Years at the absolute MAXIMUM.
tneva82 wrote: 6th lasted 2years. Same 7th. 8th 3 years. Aos 1s' what 1 year? 8th was unusually long for recent gw. Expect 40k 10th 2022-2024.
6th ed lasted for 23 months, with 7th being a May release after 6th coming in the usual end of June/early July spot.
7th ed lasted for 3 years. 8th ed lasted for 3 years. AoS 1st ed lasted for 3 years.
It's reasonable to treat 3 years as the current norm for an edition's life cycle. One should expect AoS 3rd ed next summer and 40k 10th ed in 2023 if GW is not forced to adjust what has proven to be a profitable release schedule.
Kanluwen wrote: "Core rules in campaign books" is laughable.
The stuff from Psychic Awakening, per GW themselves, is going to be in the updated codices alongside of points and Crusade stuff. They've said "not all of the Psychic Awakening" stuff will make it into the codices but what that means nobody knows. More likely than not, it means that the missions and lore won't be in there.
And frankly if anyone didn't see the writing on the wall about a new edition or codices coming once Psychic Awakening dropped(or when GW themselves called it a stopgap measure for adding new content to existing codices)? That's on those folks. Nobody made you buy the books.
some armies could go over a year without a new codex. PA at least makes that sting less
What in the world...?
Armies should go multiple years without a new codex. The desirable amount will vary by person, but I'd say 4-5 minimum.
PA stung a lot more, because it was terrible, repetitive filler strung out to avoid admitting to how temporary 8th edition was, even moreso than usual.
5 years getting stuck with the same fething book? Lol, nope. 3 Years at the absolute MAXIMUM.
The idea is that on the customer side you have a stable book you can build on, what with plenty of people not knocking out a new army in a couple of weeks. It makes purchases safer for longer if you buy models with rules in mind. Also, it's easier on the wallet.
On GW's end, actually taking their time to write a codex, think it through and revise it as necessary before it's published should improve quality and therefore also be a benefit to the customer.
Obviously that doesn't work because GW's rules writers are incapable of writing good rules on their own and keeping to the same design paradigm for more than half an edition.
A shorter codex cycle doesn't fix that, however. It'll only lead to rushed, sloppy books that still manage to shift paradigms halfway through the edition. It's just costs the customer more and involves a whole lot more errata.
Happy takeaway: It's going to suck either way but a longer cycle at least costs you less.
BrianDavion wrote: So I was reading dawn of fire and there's an intreasting passage in it
Spoiler:
in a scene where primaris marines are being unveilded for the first time there is a passage that reads " "there was hold after hold of tanks, battlewalkers, aircraft and void fighters.... obviously intended for the adeptus Astartes" hinting at an upcoming primaris flier maybe?
Well
Spoiler:
I don’t think we even need a hint for a Primaris Flyer, that’s pretty much a given regardless.
Spoiler:
Overlord - must likely a future FW kit
Overlord (Space Marine)
From the 40K Lexicanum
Space Marines Portal
The Overlord is a new aircraft used by Primaris Space Marines, one of the vehicles commissioned by the Primarch Roboute Guilliman to the Archmagos Belisarius Cawl.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Overview
1.1 Armament
1.2 Transport Capacity
2 Notable Overlords
3 See Also
4 Sources
Overview
Overlords are a new aircraft that seems to be an evolution of the Thunderhawk. It has powerful quintuple engines and twinned hulls thick enough to permit insertion from orbit like Thunderhawks or Stormbirds, despite being similar to Corvus Blackstars.[1]
Like Blackstars, Overlords possess twin transport bays with their own assault doors, but they're considerably bigger and even more blessed with advanced technologies like energy shields.[1]
Armament
An Overlord is equipped with anti-munitions cannons, wing-mounted Desolator Lascannons, nose-mounted Melta Cannons and Heavy Bolters fixed on its lower wing surfaces.[1]
Transport Capacity
An Overlord can transport up to forty Space Marines. During the Battle of Ardium, an Overlord transported one early-pattern Space Marine and thirty-nine Primaris Space Marines, some of which were wearing Mk X Gravis Armour.[1]
Notable Overlords
Adriaticus - Ultramarines[1]
Jove - Ultramarines[1]
Scion of Ultramar - Ultramarines[1]
See Also
Primaris Space Marine Armoury
Stormbird
Thunderhawk
Imperial Aircraft
Sources
You’re correct about the overlord (the Lexicanum link didn’t work so fixed with a copy/paste). I think for now the Marines are going to be like the Tau, smaller lighter first born get to be pilots and primaris are ground pounders. Next year when the Space Marines Codex v2 comes out there will probably be a primaris frier unless there’s a dogfight expansion before then.
tneva82 wrote: 6th lasted 2years. Same 7th. 8th 3 years. Aos 1s' what 1 year? 8th was unusually long for recent gw. Expect 40k 10th 2022-2024.
6th ed lasted for 23 months, with 7th being a May release after 6th coming in the usual end of June/early July spot.
7th ed lasted for 3 years. 8th ed lasted for 3 years. AoS 1st ed lasted for 3 years.
It's reasonable to treat 3 years as the current norm for an edition's life cycle. One should expect AoS 3rd ed next summer and 40k 10th ed in 2023 if GW is not forced to adjust what has proven to be a profitable release schedule.
Kanluwen wrote: "Core rules in campaign books" is laughable.
The stuff from Psychic Awakening, per GW themselves, is going to be in the updated codices alongside of points and Crusade stuff. They've said "not all of the Psychic Awakening" stuff will make it into the codices but what that means nobody knows. More likely than not, it means that the missions and lore won't be in there.
And frankly if anyone didn't see the writing on the wall about a new edition or codices coming once Psychic Awakening dropped(or when GW themselves called it a stopgap measure for adding new content to existing codices)? That's on those folks. Nobody made you buy the books.
some armies could go over a year without a new codex. PA at least makes that sting less
What in the world...?
Armies should go multiple years without a new codex. The desirable amount will vary by person, but I'd say 4-5 minimum.
PA stung a lot more, because it was terrible, repetitive filler strung out to avoid admitting to how temporary 8th edition was, even moreso than usual.
5 years getting stuck with the same fething book? Lol, nope. 3 Years at the absolute MAXIMUM.
The idea is that on the customer side you have a stable book you can build on, what with plenty of people not knocking out a new army in a couple of weeks. It makes purchases safer for longer if you buy models with rules in mind. Also, it's easier on the wallet.
On GW's end, actually taking their time to write a codex, think it through and revise it as necessary before it's published should improve quality and therefore also be a benefit to the customer.
Obviously that doesn't work because GW's rules writers are incapable of writing good rules on their own and keeping to the same design paradigm for more than half an edition.
A shorter codex cycle doesn't fix that, however. It'll only lead to rushed, sloppy books that still manage to shift paradigms halfway through the edition. It's just costs the customer more and involves a whole lot more errata.
Happy takeaway: It's going to suck either way but a longer cycle at least costs you less.
It's boring is what it is. Having a book drag on for years and years and years means the only way it doesn't become unbearably dull is if you either see very significant points changes with relative frequency (more than the 'bring it in line' chapter approved changes) or if you bolt on campaign books like PA.
Do we need 2 Space marine codexes in 12 months? No, the pace of the hobby is too slow for that. But waiting 5 years between books generally just means 2 years of playing and 3 years of asking when the new book's coming out.
Could you even imagine being stuck with something like the 8th edition grey knight book without PA for another 2 Years? Because I don't want to.
3 Years means a new book once per edition, which is perfectly fine.
Smaug wrote: You’re correct about the overlord (the Lexicanum link didn’t work so fixed with a copy/paste). I think for now the Marines are going to be like the Tau, smaller lighter first born get to be pilots and primaris are ground pounders. Next year when the Space Marines Codex v2 comes out there will probably be a primaris frier unless there’s a dogfight expansion before then.
Just clarify your "SM Codex v2", Smaug, are you meaning a third or fourth Codex since the start of 8th? #3 is on the books for October, going by WHC.
Dysartes wrote: That shares far too many design cues with a Land Speeder for it to be a flyer, especially a SM flyer.
It was not until you mentioned that that I noticed I could see the crew's helmets (and that the vehicle next to it must be a Gladiator instead of a Repulsor), so that makes sense! Looks huge though in comparison to the old Land Speeder...
ERJAK wrote: It's boring is what it is. Having a book drag on for years and years and years means the only way it doesn't become unbearably dull is if you either see very significant points changes with relative frequency (more than the 'bring it in line' chapter approved changes) or if you bolt on campaign books like PA.
Do we need 2 Space marine codexes in 12 months? No, the pace of the hobby is too slow for that. But waiting 5 years between books generally just means 2 years of playing and 3 years of asking when the new book's coming out.
Could you even imagine being stuck with something like the 8th edition grey knight book without PA for another 2 Years? Because I don't want to.
3 Years means a new book once per edition, which is perfectly fine.
One could argue that three years is a little short for an edition's life, too.
Everyone getting their codex in the current edition (and Sisters getting it, for a change, not just six months before the edition ends would be nice to see as far as that goes) is a positive change in principle, but I have not been convinced by the quality of the rules in 8th ed. Even by GW standards they feel rushed, disjointed and incomplete. The latter is exceptionally easy to see because of the quasi living rule set approach GW has switched to. We get to see them make bad rules and then changing their minds about it one or more times. Now I do have a low opinion of the rules writers' abilities to begin with, but I cannot imagine that time constraints don't contribute to the problem in a meaningful way.
Three years is a short time to write codices for everyone, considering the number of factions 40k has. Or, I guess, write them well at any rate. Being stuck with a bad book is obviously not desirable, but I wouldn't go so far as to insist that because a codex should be valid for four or more years, there aren't cases where GW screwed up so badly that they should do a revised codex earlier. That shouldn't be necessary, but that would require GW to keep up a minimum standard, and we know that's not going to happen even if by some miracle GW decided to value the quality of the game higher than the bare minimum required to make it the sales vehicle it is.
Dysartes wrote: That shares far too many design cues with a Land Speeder for it to be a flyer, especially a SM flyer.
It was not until you mentioned that that I noticed I could see the crew's helmets (and that the vehicle next to it must be a Gladiator instead of a Repulsor), so that makes sense! Looks huge though in comparison to the old Land Speeder...
Of course it's huge. How else are you going to fit a PDF regiment's worth of heavy stubbers on it?
Smaug wrote: You’re correct about the overlord (the Lexicanum link didn’t work so fixed with a copy/paste). I think for now the Marines are going to be like the Tau, smaller lighter first born get to be pilots and primaris are ground pounders. Next year when the Space Marines Codex v2 comes out there will probably be a primaris frier unless there’s a dogfight expansion before then.
Just clarify your "SM Codex v2", Smaug, are you meaning a third or fourth Codex since the start of 8th? #3 is on the books for October, going by WHC.
Poking fun at there’s at lest two Space Marine codices per edition, so the one after the one coming in October.
I think it’s interesting that aircraft is separated from void fighters. The author may have just been using liberties, but new stuff is fun as long as its not limited to certain chapters. Over all probably won’t mean as much for this game as it could for aeronautica.
I forget about that flier/ skimmer/ tank thing. I wish we could have gotten a clean picture of it before they announced the gladiator.
I think that's kinda tneva82's point - there was no way that the content within the MFM would remain static, even ignoring errata, until the next CA came out. Sections of it were always going to be overwritten as new codexes (or whatever the right plural is) were released. I even think the October SM/Necron releases were confirmed before CA hit the streets.
Trying to claim the whole thing has been invalidated by partial statline previews, when GW has specifically said nowt changes until a book drops, reminds me very much of a key phrase from one of the best characters in cinema:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Here's how the CA points could be taken now that we have these W2 revelations --
GW needed to bring the points level back up to make things sensible in context of Primaris as well as give enough space between W2 and W1. Imagine if you will points stayed as prior. You'd have 17 point Primaris, 15 point First Born, 11 point CSM, and 9 to 5 for W1. That spread makes less sense than 18/14/9to5 regardless of your opinion on IS. Then when CSM push up to 17 or 18 you'll have a well defined W2 to W1 transition.
My big question is now whether the old units and weapons properly costed for the new book.
Well we know already cost of tacticals in new w2 form. Primaris are also unlikely to change all that much unless they get buff. Hard to see them go up in price without buff and with tacticals on 18 no room to go down either.
yeah I can't see intercessors going down in points unless GW decides +1A and -1 AP are only worth 1 point together and drops them to 19 pts, which seems... unlikely
tneva82 wrote: Heard it would be going to 5++ but no real source given so i class that as unlikely. Gw ain"t nerfing marines like that
Iirc it was in a Warcom article in the text. But we all know how accurate these are I can see it going to 5+ and storm shields to 4+. It can be quite annoying to play against a whole bunch of so good invulns...and I say that as a SW player and we are the kings of storm shields
tneva82 wrote: Heard it would be going to 5++ but no real source given so i class that as unlikely. Gw ain"t nerfing marines like that
Iirc it was in a Warcom article in the text. But we all know how accurate these are I can see it going to 5+ and storm shields to 4+. It can be quite annoying to play against a whole bunch of so good invulns...and I say that as a SW player and we are the kings of storm shields
I'm pretty positive it was already stated to be a mistake and they went back and fixed the article back to 4+
H.B.M.C. wrote: So does Tesla = More shots in 9th? No more exploding dice?
I'm pretty sure it's sticking around, the Carbine is still the same profile. They just buffed the larger weapons since they have been really bad in 8th.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So does Tesla = More shots in 9th? No more exploding dice?
I'm pretty sure it's sticking around, the Carbine is still the same profile. They just buffed the larger weapons since they have been really bad in 8th.
I think it's going away. The 3 for 1 on 20 shots would be insane. The net hits without it is still way higher --
The two tesla destructors don't become vehicle killers with 2 more shots.
It's still a relatively weak weapon with no punching power in an on-going game version where most decent vehicles have a 3+ save. The reason why it was good pre-8th was due to its potential for multiple glancing hits. Now it just bounces off vehicles.
It didn't shift into the new edition very well and I don't think this change is the right direction to improve it. It should have been made into a light-vehicle destroyer, but all this does is make it more anti light infantry.
People always bash on Tesla... I’m sitting here looking at my doom scythes and annihilation barges cackling with glee
They are way stronger than people give them credit for.
Granted with mephrit
H.B.M.C. wrote: So does Tesla = More shots in 9th? No more exploding dice?
Unlikely. There wouldn't be special rule for that on here because EVERY special rule is missing.
You can't really play with these datasheets. No points, no special rules. It's useful only for leaks and for kids to play without codexes just throwing in models what they happen to have around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: If exploding 6 stay, this will indeed be a vehicle killer. I'm liking this. Necrons spent way too much time at the bottom of the trash tier in 8th,
10 S7 AP0 shots...Gee what an awesome firepower! Average 10 hits! Against leman russ let's say you get lucky and score 4 wounds! (3.333 actually). He gets 3+ save! Yey! We score somewhere between 1 and 2 wounds.
VEHICLES BEWARE
Rhino? Somewhat under 2.
What an awesome firepower! I'm going to run over those tank companies!
Have wanted to like Tesla destructors (and the annihilation barge in general - like a lot of "smaller" vehicles) through 8th and I'm afraid they have just been mediocre at best. The idea they are going to be much better with 2 more shots is hard to credit (although would be nice to see cannon stats.)
They are okay at killing expensive one wound infantry - but so is just about every gun in the game. I think they needed two damage, or at least AP-1.
Not just 2 more shots, 12" more range as well.
You can now use the annihilation barge as a long ranged suppression unit and kite the enemy like the Eldar can.
From memory, didn't the new Monolith get 4 Death Rays? So, potentially 12 shots, S12, 4-6 Damage, AP-4? Unless they're a lesser version of the same weapon...
Mchagen wrote: The two tesla destructors don't become vehicle killers with 2 more shots.
It's still a relatively weak weapon with no punching power in an on-going game version where most decent vehicles have a 3+ save. The reason why it was good pre-8th was due to its potential for multiple glancing hits. Now it just bounces off vehicles.
It didn't shift into the new edition very well and I don't think this change is the right direction to improve it. It should have been made into a light-vehicle destroyer, but all this does is make it more anti light infantry.
I don't really understand the reasoning - are you talking Doom Scythe or Night Scythe?
I agree that the lightning isn't going to be doing much against tanks (and I'm not sure why people are suddenly making that argument) but that's what the Death ray is for - the Tesla if for clearing out the little units camping on back field objectives as your zoom across the table. IMO it benefits from having both guns for different targets because you're passing over everything so fast.
Mchagen wrote: The two tesla destructors don't become vehicle killers with 2 more shots.
It's still a relatively weak weapon with no punching power in an on-going game version where most decent vehicles have a 3+ save. The reason why it was good pre-8th was due to its potential for multiple glancing hits. Now it just bounces off vehicles.
It didn't shift into the new edition very well and I don't think this change is the right direction to improve it. It should have been made into a light-vehicle destroyer, but all this does is make it more anti light infantry.
I don't really understand the reasoning - are you talking Doom Scythe or Night Scythe?
I agree that the lightning isn't going to be doing much against tanks (and I'm not sure why people are suddenly making that argument) but that's what the Death ray is for - the Tesla if for clearing out the little units camping on back field objectives as your zoom across the table. IMO it benefits from having both guns for different targets because you're passing over everything so fast.
What reasoning? I only mentioned tesla destructors. The weapon profile, not a specific unit.
Mchagen wrote: The two tesla destructors don't become vehicle killers with 2 more shots.
It's still a relatively weak weapon with no punching power in an on-going game version where most decent vehicles have a 3+ save. The reason why it was good pre-8th was due to its potential for multiple glancing hits. Now it just bounces off vehicles.
It didn't shift into the new edition very well and I don't think this change is the right direction to improve it. It should have been made into a light-vehicle destroyer, but all this does is make it more anti light infantry.
I don't really understand the reasoning - are you talking Doom Scythe or Night Scythe?
I agree that the lightning isn't going to be doing much against tanks (and I'm not sure why people are suddenly making that argument) but that's what the Death ray is for - the Tesla if for clearing out the little units camping on back field objectives as your zoom across the table. IMO it benefits from having both guns for different targets because you're passing over everything so fast.
What reasoning? I only mentioned tesla destructors. The weapon profile, not a specific unit.
Sorry - I misread - it sounded like you were making a case that the unit as a whole (with it's gun) wasn't doing what it needed to be doing.
The Night scythe is obviously doing a very different job than the Doom Scythe - so I could understand if someone had made the argument that the tesla is not a good fit to pair with the death ray.
You're right - the tesla doesn't suddenly become good against vehicles just because it got 2 more shots. It just got slightly better at doing what it was already doing - personally I think that's fine it didn't need to be, and doesn't need to be another tank killing gun.
Sasori wrote: Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model. Unless it's got something very weird going on behind it, it looks like it's a part of the background.
Looks like team "it was clearly a part of the model" were correct. See the outline on the left.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: So who think a this will be a dual-build kit with The Skoropekh Destroyer Lord?
I did, right from the get go.
I'm not as sure, because we only have the EZ build Lord to compare it to (so we can't compare the rubble behind the back leg, for example), but it still seems likely.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm hesitant to think it's a 'lord'. They just refer to it as a "Hexmark Destroyer".
Might be an Elite choice.
They confirmed it is an elite choice, and a character.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: So who think a this will be a dual-build kit with The Skoropekh Destroyer Lord?
I don't think so. It seems like the Skorpekh Lord is a bit larger than him, and I don't think we are going to be getting regular kits for most of our ETB stuff.
The Hexmark doesn't really seem like he fits on a 60 MM base either.
Sasori wrote: Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model. Unless it's got something very weird going on behind it, it looks like it's a part of the background.
Looks like team "it was clearly a part of the model" were correct. See the outline on the left.
Yep!
If you bothered to read my follow on, I even said I wasn't sure anymore just a few responses lower in the thread, though I'm sure this brought you great satisfaction to prove someone wrong on the internet!
Looks quite cool.
well still end result is damage is junk either way as this isn't improvement but side step so still just 5 to land to unguarded objective if you really want to use them
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
